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

[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

[MVSNYC]

Chris- here's a miscut example with a fat bottom border. not sure it helps in the discussion, but maybe it might.

Clayton- recognize this card?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Chris- here's a miscut example with a fat bottom border. not sure it helps in the discussion, but maybe it might.

Clayton- recognize this card?

Why yes, it does look a bit familiar to me

Great scan of it-thanks for posting it I'm glad Simon found a good home. Hope all is well with you!

Sincerely, Clayton

[Jantz]

For me, the Young and Stahl cards hold some interesting clues to sheet size.

It appears to me that the third cut (or miscut) made along the bottom of the sheet produced these two miscut cards and the fourth cut along the top of the sheet was never performed.

Am I out in left field with this line of thought?


Jantz

[atx840]

I figured the miscuts were created something like this, the borders on my sheet are not at all correct.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by atx840

I figured the miscuts were created something like this, the borders on my sheet are not at all correct.

Nice work, as usual!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


.........V................................................. .................................................. ................. 19" wide sheet .................................................. .................................................. ....................V
^
^
^
^......24" long sheet


** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..


TED Z

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


...... V................................................. .................................................. ....................... 19 inches .................................................. .................................................. ......................V




** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..



TED Z

For those cards that's an entirely plausible sheet.

But it's also a nice example of cross-brand complexity.

When the pop report numbers are looked at some interesting things come up

A couple notes first

There are obvious known problems with population report numbers. Crossovers, crack and resubmit, both skew the numbers. For now they're the best numbers we have.

HOF or high demand players/poses typically run about double the population of commons. That seems to hold true across ALL T206s, and maybe other sets too.

The McGraw numbers are even less exact than usual for pop report numbers. Many were done without noting the pose so I had to adjust the numbers for by splitting the unknown poses by the ratio for the brand.

And - the McGraw missing from cycle 460 is no error, apparently SGC hasn't handled one. It is a verified card though. (Congrats to whoever has it, it appear to be a really tough one.

SC Pied Sov AB Cycle
Devore 38 68 12 12 1
Duffy 75 115 26 13 5
Ford 41 54 37 11 5
Gandil 76 89 25 6 2
Hummell 48 67 16 6 2
McGraw 66* 113 20 3
Pfeffer 40 65 14 6 4
Tannehill 43 67 40 4 2
Wheat 77 126 19 6 2
Crandall 54 70 23 11 1
Geyer 53 65 21 7 3
Sheckard 50 81 18 12 2


Looking at these numbers things stay ok with Piedmont and SC. The players expected are not quite double the commons, and there are no surprises - All the Piedmonts are more common than the SCs. (SGC doesn't show factories, something I'd love to see done. )

Sovereign we start to see "problems" Most are in the mid teens to low 20's in population. Except Tannehill and Ford at 40 and 37. And the players I'd expect to be in that range aren't. There could be a few reasons for that. Maybe more Sov 460 HOFers were graded before SGC, so the numbers are skewed. That's still not really explaining why Ford and Tannehill are so common. Both very nearly as common as the SC version.

Moving on to AB I'd expect to see the same pattern. That's generally true, except Tannehill is one of the toughest. And three other commons seem to be "too common" And ALL the higher demand cards are tougher.

Cycles appear to get back to a more normal pattern. But except Duffy the higher demand cards still seem underpopulated. Especially McGraw.

The different patterns make me think the sheet layouts were different for the less popular brands. The Superprints aren't a good fit as potential sheet mates on A Sovereign sheet, are almost entirely excluded for AB - The popreport shows a single Chase. I think that's probably a mistake. They barely fit with Cycle. but would require an unbalanced sheet, for instance one or two superprints replacing cards in the column of 8

The sample size for Cycle is probably too small for the numbers to have much meaning.

The possibility is still there that a lot of the Sov, AB, Cycle high demand cards were graded before SGC came along, which would make the numbers more sensible.

PSA doesn't indicate the series, and I haven't run the PSA numbers for these 460 only cards.

I've done some of the 150 series, and none of the 350's the 150's seem remarkably consistent, aside from the rarities there are only one or two odd looking numbers.

Steve B

[steve B]

Darn, all the spaces got stripped out of the grid of pop report numbers.

I'll have to do a graphic or scan of some sort.

Steve b

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


.........V................................................. .................................................. ................. 19" wide sheet .................................................. .................................................. ....................V
^
^
^
^......24" long sheet


** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..


TED Z

Hi Ted,

Just curious as to how one of these would look using different subjects, other than the exclusive twelve. As an example, what would be another plausible group put together on a sheet this size? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Ted,

Just curious as to how one of these would look using different subjects, other than the exclusive twelve. As an example, what would be another plausible group put together on a sheet this size? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

My research indicates that these 48 subjects from a 350 series design were arranged on the same sheet. And, were Double-Printed in order to fill out a standard
19" x 24" sheet (96-cards).

I do not claim that the arrangement of these cards is exactly as American Litho placed them on this sheet. But, I placed same color cards together, since I have
seen this printing practice on certain uncut Sportscard sheets that I have in my collection.


Note that the same borders are on this sheet as the sheet with the Exclusive 12 cards..... 7/8" margins on each side..... 1 1/2" margins top and bottom.



v................................................. ..................... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .....................v

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
|
|
|
|
|
.
.
.
.
|
|
|
|
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________|



Stay tuned....I will try to post another sheet from another series with different cards.



TED Z
.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

My research indicates that these 48 subjects from a 350 series design were arranged on the same sheet. And, were Double-Printed in order to fill out a standard
19" x 24" sheet (96-cards).

I do not claim that the arrangement of these cards is exactly as American Litho placed them on this sheet. But, I placed same color cards together, since I have
seen this printing practice on certain uncut Sportscard sheets that I have in my collection.


Note that the same borders are on this sheet as the sheet with the Exclusive 12 cards..... 7/8" margins on each side..... 1 1/2" margins top and bottom.



v................................................. ..................... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .....................v

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
!
!



.
.
.
.



!
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________!



Stay tuned....I will try to post another sheet from another series with different cards.



TED Z
.

Interesting, thanks.

I'm just trying to follow your theory Ted, if I question anything you say it's only me trying to make sense of it. Now, going off of this sheet, I'm wondering about the card placement. I know you didn't say this is the exact card placement-but, if they knew they would be placing the same 48 subjects, printed twice, wouldn't they (possibly) double print the same card twice vertically? Like Cobb portrait with another Cobb portrait right below it, Marquard portrait with another Marquard portrait below it, etc.?

I bring this up because we've seen the vertical miscuts and the amount of same name same card miscuts(top and bottom) ratio compared to different name same card(top and bottom). With this layout, every card would have the possibility to have a same card different name miscut(top and bottom).

Looking forward to your next example, thanks for taking the time to lay this out.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Oooops^^^^ looks like my quoting the sheet layout messed it up

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Jantz

For me, the Young and Stahl cards hold some interesting clues to sheet size.

It appears to me that the third cut (or miscut) made along the bottom of the sheet produced these two miscut cards and the fourth cut along the top of the sheet was never performed.

Am I out in left field with this line of thought?


Jantz

I'm curious....what interesting clues do the miscut Young and Stahl cards suggest to you regarding the sheet size ?

Also, what are your thoughts of how the T206's were printed ?


TED Z