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

[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

[tedzan]

34 subjects of which two of these subjects have been Double-Printed in order to fill out a 36 card format. I chose Powers because T206 surveys indicate that this card with
the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory #649 (overprint) is approx. twice as available with respect to most others with this back. And, I chose the Matty (white cap) for the same
reason. Furthermore, the Davis, Griffith, Johnson, and Marquard cards are about twice as available with respect to most others with this back. Therefore, any one of these 4
may be substituted for Matty.

Shown here are two 36 card arrangements printed on a hypothetical 19" x 20" sheet of cardboard. If these 72 cards were centered, then the resulting side margins are each
7/8" wide. And, the top & bottom margins are each 2" wide.


v................................................. .................................................. .... 19" wide x 20" long sheet .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................v
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
........
..............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________



Triple-Printing (108-card sheet) of these 36-card formats is possible on a standard 19" x 24" sheet. This would be more efficient use of the cardboard (printers do not like to
waste paper). However, it would be a tight squeeze.


TED Z