Yet Another T206 Sheet Size Discussion

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Curious as to the answer to my questions...

Originally Posted by t206hound

Still waiting...

Are you are saying that within a series (Piedmont 350 in this instance) that the layouts did or did not change?

If you believe they did not change, then it's been demonstrated that there are other cards adjacent to those that you say appeared together and therefore your assertion is incorrect.
If you believe that they did change, then how can you assert beyond a reasonable doubt that they ever appeared together on a single sheet?

Originally Posted by t206hound

Well, my beer is gone. I waited all weekend and no discussion.

Man, you are one hyper dude !


FYI....we were away in Cape May since Friday for some Sun, Surf & Fun.

Anyhow, there is really nothing more that I can add that will convince you that your "17" (or 34) myth is not the way ALC printed these cards.

I have tried to explain the basis for the 48-subject arrangement that I posted.....but, it's either not registering, or you just do not understand
where I'm coming from.


TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Anyhow, there is really nothing more that I can add that will convince you that your "17" (or 34) myth is not the way ALC printed these cards.

I have tried to explain the basis for the 48-subject arrangement that I posted.....but, it's either not registering, or you just do not understand
where I'm coming from.

TED Z
.

In my questions I didn't reference 17 or 34. In fact, for the moment, let's just say that I agree with you that the sheets were 12x8 (for a total of 96 cards).

My question still stands as it relates to this post:

Originally Posted by tedzan

Their arrangement is arbitrary, but I firmly believe these 48 were printed together on the same sheet. I show them Double-Printed in order to completely fill-out the sheet.
TED Z

We know that a Rossman/McBride two namer exists, along with Rossman/Rossman double namer, so that means that Rossman had to appear at least twice on a sheet. We also have a Matty McIntyre and Danny Hoffman two namer. These are all on Piedmont 350.

So far, your theory holds with your 48 "Coupon" players appearing together twice on one sheet (Rossman, McBride, McIntyre and Hoffman).

But then we have other Piedmont 350 miscuts where we see Rossman adjacent to Stephens and Jimmy Jackson under Hoffman.

So now the question:
How can those 48 players (from your image) be together when we know that Stephens and Jackson were on a sheet with four of them?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206hound

In my questions I didn't reference 17 or 34. In fact, for the moment, let's just say that I agree with you that the sheets were 12x8 (for a total of 96 cards).

My question still stands as it relates to this post:


We know that a Rossman/McBride two namer exists, along with Rossman/Rossman double namer, so that means that Rossman had to appear at least twice on a sheet. We also have a Matty McIntyre and Danny Hoffman two namer. These are all on Piedmont 350.

So far, your theory holds with your 48 "Coupon" players appearing together twice on one sheet (Rossman, McBride, McIntyre and Hoffman).

Fine, I will start with the fact that most of us T206 "dudes" appear to agree on......that whatever the size sheet, ALC printed the fronts first. Then, these pre-printed (blank-backed)
sheets were hung up to dry....then stacked awaiting for orders from the various T-brand Factory's requesting T206 cards.

In the 150 Series press runs, and the 350 Series press runs, the PIEDMONT brand cards were printed 1st. PIEDMONT cards represent approx. 50 % of the total population of T206's. SWEET CAPORAL cards represent approx. 30 % of the total population of T206's.

So, I present the 48 - Major League subjects from the 1910 COUPON set as an example, as it suggests to us the structure of a very plausible sheet configuration. Note, that I said
48 SUBJECTS....which means ALC may have (and most likely) Double-Printed them producing a 96-card sheet.


Furthermore, the 12 - 150-only subjects....the 48 Southern Leaguers....and, my "Exclusive 12" configuration, also suggest to us of how these cards were configured.
Short of these 4 examples, it is difficult to figure out how all the other T206's were configured (or arranged) on printed sheets.

Originally Posted by t206hound

But then we have other Piedmont 350 miscuts where we see Rossman adjacent to Stephens and Jimmy Jackson under Hoffman.

Now, regarding Claude Rossman. His Major Lge. career ended in early September 1909. Therefore, he was printed only on 5 backs. So, it's somewhat puzzling to me that Rossman
is adjacent with subjects other than the ones on my 48-subject arrangement.

Originally Posted by t206hound

So now the question:
How can those 48 players (from your image) be together when we know that Stephens and Jackson were on a sheet with four of them?

However, we do know that ALC moved images around different printing plate configurations. And, this should explain the Jackson/Rossman and Stephens/Rossman adjacency.

I would like to know what T-brand backs are on these two adjacent situations ?



TED Z
.

[steve B]

All plausible except the hanging them up to dry. I've never seen a picture of that being done even then. Maybe in an art printer, but not in a high production environment. It takes way too much time and isn't really necessary.

This next bit is where I differ from pretty much everyone else.

Because of time constraints I don't see any brand being produced first. Certainly portions of a series for some brands were done before others, but Getting it done would probably have required almost constant output for the bigger brands. And most likely running various portions on different presses at the same time.
For example
Monday- Print yellow
Tuesday -Print yellow on press 1 and possibly brown or light blue on press 2 using the yellow produced day 1(Doing brown after yellow would be odd. The yellow /browns say it may have been done, but it's not typical)

I've seen a few cards that seem to have been done on a multi color press, and a very small group with a flaw that I haven't figured out. I've been researching press patents today and I'm very close to tossing nearly every assumption I've made so far. I'm thinking I really need to get up to the local printing museum to see if they have anything related to ALC or perhaps a Hoe company catalog.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

This next bit is where I differ from pretty much everyone else.

Because of time constraints I don't see any brand being produced first.

Steve B

Well, on this account, I differ from you.

The MAGIE error card and the JOE DOYLE (Nat'l error) card absolutely tell us that PIEDMONT backs were FIRST printed on the sheets of pre-printed fronts.

There is no other logical explanation for the PIEDMONT-only backs on these cards and the scarcity of them.


TED Z
.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Well, on this account, I differ from you.

The MAGIE error card and the JOE DOYLE (Nat'l error) card absolutely tell us that PIEDMONT backs were FIRST printed on the sheets of pre-printed fronts.

There is no other logical explanation for the PIEDMONT-only backs on these cards and the scarcity of them.


TED Z
.

You missed an important bit when quoting.

"Because of time constraints I don't see any brand being produced first. Certainly portions of a series for some brands were done before others, but Getting it done would probably have required almost constant output for the bigger brands.

Magie was probably very early, and yes, would have gotten Piedmont first. But there's no way of knowing whether Magie was on the very first sheet or a later sheet. If we knew which cards were with Magie then we might be able to tell. If it was with the other 150 only cards and the whole sheet was pulled and reworked. Maybe it was early. If not then there were sheets done before that one and they would have had a range of backs.

The Doyle tells us nothing about the sequence of backs. The error would have been easily corrected on the press, Unlike Magie which was reworked. So the Doyle could have happened anytime during the 350 run.

Scot Rs estimates of production are as high as 100 million just for Piedmont in 1910. I don't think it's realistic to think they printed all the Piedmonts them moved on to whatever was next. Even if the production number was 1/3 of that it makes no sense.
What does make sense - if it was a normal sheet fed press or more likely presses. would be printing a group on multiple presses until either the order was complete or the plates wore out. Then moving on to the next sheet layout. The raw numbers make the use of one sheetfed single color press nearly impossible. 9375 hours at 1000 sheets /hour. for 100 million. 3093 hours for 33 million. A full year of 50 hour weeks is only 2600 hours.

Those numbers assume a 96 card sheet. Smaller would take longer larger would be faster.

Multi color presses would reduce the time a lot. As would faster presses which were usually webfed. (Printing from a large roll of paper rather than from sheets.)

Steve B

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

You missed an important bit when quoting.

"Because of time constraints I don't see any brand being produced first. Certainly portions of a series for some brands were done before others, but Getting it done would probably have required almost constant output for the bigger brands.

Steve

You are dismissing an established fact regarding ATC....PIEDMONT was ATC's "flagship" tobacco brand....and, this is the reason why 53 % T206's were printed with PIEDMONT
backs (two independent large surveys both confirm this %).

My guess is that American Litho first printed huge loads of PIEDMONT backed T206's and shipped them down to Factory #25 in Richmond, VA. DITTO for when ALC introduced
their 350 series cards. Followed by SWEET CAPORAL backed T206's which were shipped to [Factory #25 (VA) and Factory #30 (N.Y.)]. The same surveys indicate that 28 % of
the T206 population was printed with the SWEET CAPORAL brand.

Originally Posted by steve B

Magie was probably very early, and yes, would have gotten Piedmont first. But there's no way of knowing whether Magie was on the very first sheet or a later sheet. If we knew which cards were with Magie then we might be able to tell. If it was with the other 150 only cards and the whole sheet was pulled and reworked. Maybe it was early. If not then there were sheets done before that one and they would have had a range of backs.

The MAGIE error card was not printed on the "very first" sheet (as you suggested). The MAGEE (portrait) card is a 150/350 series subject. The 12 subjects in the 150-only
series are known which were printed on the "very first" sheets. MAGEE is not one of them.

Originally Posted by steve B

The Doyle tells us nothing about the sequence of backs. The error would have been easily corrected on the press, Unlike Magie which was reworked. So the Doyle could have happened anytime during the 350 run.

I think "sequence" is an important factor here, because what you are alluding to would have resulted in a SWEET CAP, or a SOVEREIGN, or etc. back on this error card instead
of its PIEDMONT 350 back.

Originally Posted by steve B

Scot Rs estimates of production are as high as 100 million just for Piedmont in 1910. I don't think it's realistic to think they printed all the Piedmonts them moved on to whatever was next. Even if the production number was 1/3 of that it makes no sense.
What does make sense - if it was a normal sheet fed press or more likely presses. would be printing a group on multiple presses until either the order was complete or the plates wore out. Then moving on to the next sheet layout. The raw numbers make the use of one sheetfed single color press nearly impossible. 9375 hours at 1000 sheets /hour. for 100 million. 3093 hours for 33 million. A full year of 50 hour weeks is only 2600 hours.

Those numbers assume a 96 card sheet. Smaller would take longer larger would be faster. Steve B

I have been saying 96-card sheets (12 columns x 8 rows) for a long time now....so, I'm pleased to read here that you appear to agree.

And, American Lithographic operating multiple presses simultaneously to produce millions of T206 cards sounds good to me.



TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Now, regarding Claude Rossman. His Major Lge. career ended in early September 1909. Therefore, he was printed only on 5 backs. So, it's somewhat puzzling to me that Rossman
is adjacent with subjects other than the ones on my 48-subject arrangement.

I would like to know what T-brand backs are on these two adjacent situations ?

The Jackson-Hoffman reported in the One T206, Two Names thread was a Piedmont 350 back.

I don't know the back of the Stephens-Rossman, but as you state, it can only be one of four (five with Coupon). I thought I was told that it was Piedmont 350, but cannot find any documentation on that. The image below is from the T206 Neighbors thread. EDITED: I have confirmed that this card has a Piedmont 350 back.

Originally Posted by tedzan

However, we do know that ALC moved images around different printing plate configurations. And, this should explain the Jackson/Rossman and Stephens/Rossman adjacency.

Which is my point... if they switched around configurations, there's no way to know which cards comprised an entire sheet.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Which is my point... if they switched around configurations, there's no way to know which cards comprised an entire sheet.

This point of your's is well taken.


And, at the risk of being repetitive, the the two 48 subject examples I have presented here are windows in a specific timeline.

The 1910 COUPON issue was how that arrangement was in the Spring/Summer of 1910.

The 48 Southern Leaguer's arrangement was most likely very late 1909 (or early 1910) press runs since they are either OLD MILL's or PIEDMONT 350's.


TED Z
.