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

[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!)

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by 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!)

Furthermore, the fact that the MAGIE error exists only with the PIEDMONT 150 back unquestionably proves to us that PIEDMONT backs were printed first in the initial
T206 press runs. Otherwise, this error card would only have been printed with the SOVEREIGN 150 back......if the SOVEREIGN printing preceded the PIEDMONT printing.

And, if that doesn't convince some....then the fact that the Joe DOYLE (Nat'l) error exists only with the PIEDMONT 350 back in the initial 350 Series press runs should
provide the final proof.

Indeed, American Litho printed the PIEDMONT backs first on the T206's in both the 150/350 series and the 350-only series press runs.

No big mystery here....since the PIEDMONT brand was the "flagship" tobacco product of the American Tobacco Company (circa 1909 - 1911).


TED Z

[MVSNYC]

Hi Ted- if you think they made 10 million cards (i tend to agree with your estimate), how many do you think survive today, and approx how many of each player (on average)? there was a thread recently where some people suggested there were 3000-5000 of each player still...i think it's less...what do you think?

thanks!
M

[tedzan]

I'm not going to venture a guess as to how many T206's have survived over these 100+ years. However, if my memory serves me, I do recall that Scot Reader
said in his "Inside T206" book that he estimated that some where between 1.6 to 2 Million T206's are in circulation nowadays.

I think that is a fair estimate......therefore, that suggests to us that on the average 3000 - 4000 of each T206 subject is in circulation (independent of backs).
And, of course these numbers don't apply when you factor in some of the rare backs.


Take care, my friend

TED Z

[steve B]

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

150 and 350 are far more complex.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

And they would probably have used different presses based on the size of the individual order. Based on the sheets/hour the presses could manage Piedmont was probably in nearly constant production. Hindu probably wasn't.

Since F649 packed for "other than Philadelphia" and presumably "Philadelphia" there would probably have been different sheets for the different distribution.
That's backed up somewhat by the Powers card, which is the only subject that has both no 350 series AND a F649 op.

It's entirely likely that piedmont was produced on a larger sheet than Hindu.

It's also likely that production was simultaneous. Piedmont being produced on one press while Sovereign was printed on another.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the fronts are specific to a brand. So there will be tiny differences between say a Piedmont 150 Ewing and an SC150 Ewing. This may or may not transfer to the 350's and tougher backs, but I believe it will.

The 150 series was produced in multiple stages. There are a few cards with at least three obvious design changes within their 150 production. (Tinker being the most obvious)

The subjects that were carried over from 150 to 350 were reworked. Conroy with the striped/non-striped cap, Ritchey, probably others. it's unclear yet if there were many transitional cards produced -Meaning 150 fronts but with a 350 back, or less likely a 350 variety with a 150 back.

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered. And ATC either slipped the ads through or was allowed to let them run since the cost of recalling them would have been high.

While decent margins are good practice even today, I've seen some evidence that ALC ran tight margins on at least one side of a sheet. That doesn't match with the factory numbers in the margins of SC150 sheets, but could still be what was done.

Getting farther afield,

ALC was pretty tight with the Hoe press company.

And Hoe produced some very advanced stuff.
Two color presses. - Picture two presses back to back so they print two colors in one pass.
And web fed presses, which print from a roll of paper rather than sheets.
If T206s were produced on a web press that would change everything.

There's some indication that two color presses may have been used for the T206s for at least some of the production.

Supposedly Cutteich was the first company to produce color postcards on an offset press in 1910. I think the article actually refers to the more modern CMYK four color process, rather than offset itself, but it also gives some insight to the overall process at Curtteich.
http://teicharchives.blogspot.com/20...ny-part-2.html
The press shown is a Miehle, but would be very similar to a Hoe press.

Postcards in production shown here, the rest of the site is a very good overview of different processes.
http://www.metropostcard.com/techniques3.html

An 1879 Hoe press is shown here. Probably not much different from those used in 1910.
http://www.howardironworks.org/colle...ress-1879.html

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by steve B

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

150 and 350 are far more complex.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

And they would probably have used different presses based on the size of the individual order. Based on the sheets/hour the presses could manage Piedmont was probably in nearly constant production. Hindu probably wasn't.

Since F649 packed for "other than Philadelphia" and presumably "Philadelphia" there would probably have been different sheets for the different distribution.
That's backed up somewhat by the Powers card, which is the only subject that has both no 350 series AND a F649 op.

It's entirely likely that piedmont was produced on a larger sheet than Hindu.

It's also likely that production was simultaneous. Piedmont being produced on one press while Sovereign was printed on another.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the fronts are specific to a brand. So there will be tiny differences between say a Piedmont 150 Ewing and an SC150 Ewing. This may or may not transfer to the 350's and tougher backs, but I believe it will.

The 150 series was produced in multiple stages. There are a few cards with at least three obvious design changes within their 150 production. (Tinker being the most obvious)

The subjects that were carried over from 150 to 350 were reworked. Conroy with the striped/non-striped cap, Ritchey, probably others. it's unclear yet if there were many transitional cards produced -Meaning 150 fronts but with a 350 back, or less likely a 350 variety with a 150 back.

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered. And ATC either slipped the ads through or was allowed to let them run since the cost of recalling them would have been high.

While decent margins are good practice even today, I've seen some evidence that ALC ran tight margins on at least one side of a sheet. That doesn't match with the factory numbers in the margins of SC150 sheets, but could still be what was done.

Getting farther afield,

ALC was pretty tight with the Hoe press company.

And Hoe produced some very advanced stuff.
Two color presses. - Picture two presses back to back so they print two colors in one pass.
And web fed presses, which print from a roll of paper rather than sheets.
If T206s were produced on a web press that would change everything.

There's some indication that two color presses may have been used for the T206s for at least some of the production.

Supposedly Cutteich was the first company to produce color postcards on an offset press in 1910. I think the article actually refers to the more modern CMYK four color process, rather than offset itself, but it also gives some insight to the overall process at Curtteich.
http://teicharchives.blogspot.com/20...ny-part-2.html
The press shown is a Miehle, but would be very similar to a Hoe press.

Postcards in production shown here, the rest of the site is a very good overview of different processes.
http://www.metropostcard.com/techniques3.html

An 1879 Hoe press is shown here. Probably not much different from those used in 1910.
http://www.howardironworks.org/colle...ress-1879.html

Steve B

Hi Steve,

Thanks for all of the information, this is more what I was looking for, and I appreciate it. It's interesting that you said you have seen a 1910 press in operation printing a sheet that's half as wide as the track. I had asked a few times (in the past) if the "track width" can be adjusted, and this is why I was asking- basically, to find out if they could print multiple sized sheets (or works) on the same press.

I also found during searching around on the web a site about movie posters, and they had some very interesting information-printing huge lithographed posters.

Thanks again for the information-

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Steve,

Thanks for all of the information, this is more what I was looking for, and I appreciate it. It's interesting that you said you have seen a 1910 press in operation printing a sheet that's half as wide as the track. I had asked a few times (in the past) if the "track width" can be adjusted, and this is why I was asking- basically, to find out if they could print multiple sized sheets (or works) on the same press.

I also found during searching around on the web a site about movie posters, and they had some very interesting information-printing huge lithographed posters.

Thanks again for the information-

Sincerely, Clayton

The more modern press I ran briefly in 1981 could print narrower than the usual 35 inches, but as far as I know our shop never ran it that way. They had two 35s, a 24 and a small one, 12"? Later they bought a 35" two color press.

I was pretty sure the old ones could also run narrower, but hadn't seen any proof of it. The sizes in some ads are shown as maximum stone size, and maximum print size.

Steve B

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by steve B

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered.

I agree Steve. Hence (among several other reasons set forth in my as of yet unanswered queries) my view that Wags was on the original 150 series checklist, not an "add-on" as theorized by T206 Resource.

But hey, these are all just theories and it's perfectly acceptable for rational people to use some introspection and give credit where due, admitting error where appropriate.

Edited to add: By the way, this is perhaps OT, but i want to give T206 Resource credit for discovering, without much fanfare as far as I can tell, that Schaefer (Detroit) and Spencer are (at least probable) Sweet Cap 350 and Sovereign 350 no-prints--and thus are (at least likely) part of what was once called the "elite eight" 150/350 subjects who are not possible with either of those backs but has over time grown to a larger group. Good job on that one--probably worthy of a short article.

[tedzan]

My selection of the 12 guys from 460-only series that I refer to as the "Exclusive 12" is not based on any POP reports. These 12 subjects are sort of "unique" with respect
to the other 36 subjects that were printed with only 460 series backs.

I've tracked these 12 for the past 6 years while in the process of completing my all-SOVEREIGN set, and the following T206 sub-sets....AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, red HINDU,
and SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory 42.

If you haven't read my thread regarding these 12 - T206's and why they are special, take some time to do so....http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


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

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[tedzan]

You repeatedly seem to have a problem with my reference to American Litho's use of 19" track width presses. I have presented this theory for the past 7 years on this
forum.
So, I want you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve B when he speaks of the same 19" track width presses used by ALC to print these cards ?

Furthermore, I will remind you that it was Steve who informed us that ALC most likely printed a lot of their stuff on the standard size 19" x 24" cardboard stock.
Again, I ask you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve about his information ?

Originally Posted by steve B

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

Steve B

Clayton......at least Steve and I have provided some meaningful information based on our research to support my theory of 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, or 108-card sheets using
a 19" press to print these cards on sheets whose size varies up to 19" x 24".

Furthermore, the structures of the various Series in the T206 set mathematically lend themselves to factors of 6 and 12. I have not wavered from my thinking regarding
this since the early 1980's when I first started collecting T206's and T205's.


On the other hand, you are "stuck" on the "34 card" sheet myth. And, anyone who challenges that myth "bugs" you.

Anyhow, I have an idea why you repeatedly question my comments on this subject in the past (and here in this thread). But, not when Steve B. talks about 19" presses
and sheet sizes of 19" x 24".

But, for now I'll keep my suspicion on this to myself.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

You repeatedly seem to have a problem with my reference to American Litho's use of 19" track width presses. I have presented this theory for the past 7 years on this
forum.
So, I want you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve B when he speaks of the same 19" track width presses used by ALC to print these cards ?

Furthermore, I will remind you that it was Steve who informed us that ALC most likely printed a lot of their stuff on the standard size 19" x 24" cardboard stock.
Again, I ask you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve about his information ?



Clayton......at least Steve and I have provided some meaningful information based on our research to support my theory of 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, or 108-card sheets using
a 19" press to print these cards on sheets whose size varies up to 19" x 24".

Furthermore, the structures of the various Series in the T206 set mathematically lend themselves to factors of 6 and 12. I have not wavered from my thinking regarding
this since the early 1980's when I first started collecting T206's and T205's.


On the other hand, you are "stuck" on the "34 card" sheet myth. And, anyone who challenges that myth "bugs" you.

Anyhow, I have an idea why you repeatedly question my comments on this subject in the past (and here in this thread). But, not when Steve B. talks about 19" presses
and sheet sizes of 19" x 24".

But, for now I'll keep my suspicion on this to myself.


TED Z

Well Ted, I probably question you (and not Steve "specifically") because Steve has shown that he is willing to at least "consider" other theories. You, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't support your theory-which is fine. We are all entitled to our own opinions. But, you stick to this 19" thing as though it is entire reason we should "look no further",,,,,


When I say I am not sure we can "unequivocally" say these cards were printed on a 19"x24" sheet, on a press that only uses a 19" track width, I am saying that to EVERYONE (yes, Steve also Ted) that I am not convinced that this should be stated AS FACT unless we have PROOF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also thought I remembered Steve saying he believed that the ALC did use different sized presses.

In my recent posts, I did not mention the #34. I have been trying to be open minded to what you present, but you get too bent out of shape when I question you or state my opinion (if it doesn't jive with your theory)- and I thought I was being polite enough not to make you feel "attacked".

Yes, it is easier for me to understand the #34, because it is based on print groups and not cemented in track width and sheet size. And, it's always presented as a theory (and a very good one), and not fact-although they always provide very convincing evidence.

There is no conspiracy here Ted, so speak your mind freely. I don't want you to feel suspicious about me- no one has put me up to questioning you

If an uncut sheet of T206's shows up and it's 19"x"24", you, Steve, and anyone else who has a problem with me questioning this will be THE FIRST people I will publicly apologize to, right here on Net54

Until then, carry on and I'll just sit on the sidelines.

Sincerely, Clayton