Yet Another T206 Sheet Size Discussion

[tedzan]

I will start this by reminding you that in a previous thread on this topic, you agreed with me that for T206 type printing,
American Lithographic (ALC) employed a 19-inch wide press. Furthermore, your research informed us that the standard
size (19" x 24") cardboard sheets were used by ALC to print these 1 7/16" x 2 5/8" cards.

Here is my simulated sheet diagram of the 12 subjects in the 460-only series that I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For a
thorough explanation of this special group of 12 - T206's, check out this thread.....
EXCLUSIVE 12


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




Hey guys, your mythical 34-card T206 sheet (17 across x 2 rows) is mathematically (and physically) impossible to fit on
a standard sheet of cardboard whose dimensions are 19" x 24".....whichever way you try to print it


Finally, there are a total of 156 subjects in the 150 series (with PIEDMONT backs). And, there are 12 subjects in the
150-only series. Therefore, 156 - 12 = 144 subjects which were printed with both the 150 & 350 backs.

My math strongly suggests a factor of 12 is evident here (and throughout the White-bordered & Gold-bordered tobacco
card structure).

156 subjects, or 144 subjects, or 48 subjects, or 12 subjects, are not divisible by "17" ......not in this world.



T-Rex TED
.

[Runscott]

Ted, did you know that 144 is the twelfth number in the Fibonici series 144 and it is also twelve squared?

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey guys, your mythical 34-card T206 sheet (17 across x 2 rows) is mathematically (and physically) impossible to fit on
a standard sheet of cardboard whose dimensions are 19" x 24".....whichever way you try to print it

Glad you jumped in Ted. I honestly enjoy when you get in on this discussion and respect your opinions on the matter. The possibility of 17 cards jumped out at me again when I realized that the Sweet Cap 150 issues all were multiples of 17 (153, 153 and 34). I don't know anything about the presses used, ALC's equipment, etc. All I know are the cards in each issue... and after that I'm just using gut, math and logic.

I know that you (and others) contend that there is no other sheet dimension that could have been used, but the uncut Obak sheet was 31" x 23.5" and had 21 cards per row (image from the Huggins and Scott auction listing below). It's interesting with the Obak that half the set (88) composition is represented in this sheet, which would lead you to believe a single additional sheet layout comprised the remaining cards (87). It's also interesting to me that while the entire set could have fit on a single sheet (179 card sheet layout, and 175 cards in the set) that the cards were split onto two different sheets. I'll guess it is because it allowed them to use two presses running at the same time to produce the cards.

Anyway, I acknowledge that the sheets were produced by different companies on different sides of the country (I believe), but I'm letting sheer logic tell me that two tobacco card sets printed at roughly the same time could have utilized the same sheet size. Is there absolutely no way possible that T206s were printed on a sheet that exceeded 19" x 24"?

[Jantz]

Just an random observation of mine about the Obak sheet is the vertical line in the bottom left corner.

Lines like this have appeared on the front of T206s also.


Jantz

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Glad you jumped in Ted. I honestly enjoy when you get in on this discussion and respect your opinions on the matter. The possibility of 17 cards jumped out at me again when I realized that the Sweet Cap 150 issues all were multiples of 17 (153, 153 and 34). I don't know anything about the presses used, ALC's equipment, etc. All I know are the cards in each issue... and after that I'm just using gut, math and logic.

Be careful now....you chose two SWEET CAP examples that PERHAPS fit your number "17". There are other SWEET CAP examples that conform to my "12 factor". For example....the Exclusive 12 subjects with SWEET CAP 350-460 Factory #42. These 12 cards are the only SWEET CAP #42's in the 460-only series.




Note my emphasis of PERHAPS in your examples. I have theorized that the so-called "34 subjects" of the SWEET CAP 150 Factory #30 group were actually on a 36-card sheet. The
two missing guys were Plank and Wagner (who we know were discarded). Or, if you think this theory of mine is too speculative, then consider this.....the two additional slots were
filled by Double-Printing popular guys like Johnson and Matty.

Originally Posted by t206hound

I know that you (and others) contend that there is no other sheet dimension that could have been used, but the uncut Obak sheet was 31" x 23.5" and had 21 cards per row (image from the Huggins and Scott auction listing below). It's interesting with the Obak that half the set (88) composition is represented in this sheet, which would lead you to believe a single additional sheet layout comprised the remaining cards (87). It's also interesting to me that while the entire set could have fit on a single sheet (179 card sheet layout, and 175 cards in the set) that the cards were split onto two different sheets. I'll guess it is because it allowed them to use two presses running at the same time to produce the cards.

Regarding the OBAK sheet. Schmidt Lithographic (SL) of San Francisco was a large a printing firm as American Lithographic (ALC). SL produced some very high quality litho's
early in the 20th Century.
They apparently made use of their larger printing presses in the production of the OBAK series. Whereas, ALC realized, with their 6-7 color process, they achieved a higher
quality yield by printing smaller sheets of cards. And, yield was an important factor when you are cranking out 10 Million cards (or more). I have seen several uncut sheets
of various Non-Sports issues done by ALC....and, some are printed on smaller size (smaller than 19" x 24") sheets.

My point is, that you cannot compare what SL produced and try to translate that to what ALC produced. These two printing firms operated quite differently.



TED Z

[mrvster]

guys!

[steve B]

ALC did have presses with a 19" track. Specifically Hoe company number 5 presses. BUT and this is an important thing. ALC was a huge printing concern, the info about the presses comes from a diagram of one floor of the plant in an article about their conversion to electricity to run the machines.(Or use of electricity in the plant when it was new- I don't recall which it was. ) That was in Scientific American back then.

Most huge printing companies will have a variety of presses. The only places I've seen with only one size press have been either very small like someone running one of the little 10" presses in their garage. Or a place that only prints one fairly consistent item, like a newspaper or book publisher.


One of the things I find fascinating is that compelling arguments can be made for Both multiples of 12 and multiples of 17.

I will also say that I've seen the breakdown Chris did of the 460 series, and being at the time more in the 12 camp than the 17 I tried to use pop report numbers to break his groups. With the exception of maybe 4 cards that looked like they belonged in a different group my attempt at proving those groups wrong failed. And the very few that could have moved groups came in pairs - If one had too many graded copies for it's group it matched another group very well, AND that other group had a card that matched the other group. Neither of the swaps broke the overall pattern by requiring an unconfirmed combination.

Since then I've become convinced that both 12 and 17 are correct for particular portions of some series.

Some quick math based on a couple decent guesses and using Scot Readers estimates of how many might have been printed also leads me to believe that at least for the very common backs more than one press was used at a time. The numbers indicate a need for almost constant printing of Piedmont for sure. Say 100 million P350s? At 17x6 - 102 per sheet, that's 980392 sheets. Times 9 impressions/sheet is 8823529 impressions. At 800/hour = 11,029 hours. (And that doesn't count setup time and pre production, and cutting/packing) A 50 hour workweek is only 2600 hours a year. Three shifts with no downtime? 459 days Use of a two color press would cut the time in half. Using multiple presses would make it manageable.
Another option would be a far larger sheet, perhaps made up of 4 smaller sheets. Many US stamps were printed this way. Press sheet =4 10x10 panes that were then cut apart before perforating.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

ALC did have presses with a 19" track. Specifically Hoe company number 5 presses. BUT and this is an important thing. ALC was a huge printing concern, the info about the presses comes from a diagram of one floor of the plant in an article about their conversion to electricity to run the machines.(Or use of electricity in the plant when it was new- I don't recall which it was. ) That was in Scientific American back then.
Steve B

Yes, we know that American Litho (ALC) had varying sizes of printing presses. Big ones, medium size ones, and smaller size presses. However, it is my understanding that ALC
realized, with their 6-7 color process used to print these tobacco cards, they were able to achieve a higher YIELD of quality by printing them on smaller sheets. And, YIELD was
a very important factor when you are cranking out 10's of Millions of cards in a short time span.

Steve, do you agree with the above premise ?


And, while it's a mystery to me that we haven't discovered any uncut sheets (or partially uncut panels) of T206's, I've seen several uncut sheets of various Non-Sports issues
produced by ALC. One (or two) were printed on a 19" x 24" sheet; and, others were printed on smaller size sheets.



TED Z

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Yes, we know that American Litho (ALC) had varying sizes of printing presses. Big ones, medium size ones, and smaller size presses. However, it is my understanding that ALC
realized, with their 6-7 color process used to print these tobacco cards, they were able to achieve a higher YIELD of quality by printing them on smaller sheets. And, YIELD was
a very important factor when you are cranking out 10's of Millions of cards in a short time span.

Steve, do you agree with the above premise ?


And, while it's a mystery to me that we haven't discovered any uncut sheets (or partially uncut panels) of T206's, I've seen several uncut sheets of various Non-Sports issues
produced by ALC. One (or two) were printed on a 19" x 24" sheet; and, others were printed on smaller size sheets.



TED Z

Not quite. They would get higher yield from larger sheets. The press can only make so many impressions an hour back then typically 800-1000 for a sheet fed press.
The web presses could run much faster, but I haven't found any indication that they were for lithography. The aluminum plates came out around 1900, so it's certainly possible.

Balancing quality, speed, and costs from setup time etc is the challenge. Quality is mostly up to the operator, but running faster makes it much harder.

One thing all of us neglect is the possibility of very large sheets laid out in blocks that could be based on 12 or 17 subjects. Or multiple sheet arrangements - So printing both sheets that were 17 (Maybe more) Subjects AND at the same time printing sheets that were 12 subjects.

I haven't seen the uncut non-sports cards, different sizes makes sense since many of those sets were 50-100 cards. If you have any links to them I think they'd be very interesting.

It is odd that no uncut production baseball cards are known, when there are sheets or partial sheets of other stuff. Odder still is that the progressive proof books for cigar box labels are readily available, but I've never seen one for any card. That's probably a matter of what got saved.

Steve B