Yet Another T206 Sheet Size Discussion

[steve B]

I'll split the quotes so my comments go with the right ones

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.
.

The numbers make the scenario of printing a large number of any one back first then producing a different back very unlikely. Just the simple numbers at the end of my previous post show that producing only Piedmonts would have taken a full year using two presses.
More likely is nearly constant throughput for Piedmont and probably SC. The other brands might have been done in a single batch, especially the really hard ones like Drum and BL460.
I know that goes against the established views, but barring high speed presses (Which might have been used, and almost certainly were for the pack labels) There simply wasn't enough time.

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.

.

MagEE is a 150/350, I don't believe MagIE is . I believe MagIE was early in the run, perhaps not first, but early. And was only used for Piedmont before it was pulled. The MagEE was heavily reworked along with the name fix. I think I'm close to being able to tell them apart without the caption being visible.

I've become positive that the 150s went to press three individual times (At least) With small changes between runs. Most likely because the plates wore out. The 350's also were done with multiple sets of plates - at least three and possibly more. And those were all slightly different form the 150's where the subject was produced for both.

The question remains - Why were the 150 onlys not continued? If Magie is counted there are 13, Those fall somewhat neatly into two groups based on population numbers (for what they're worth, flawed, but the only numbers publicly available. ) That to me indicates either an uneven sheet layout or blocks of 6 by X for the transfers the layouts were probably done with. Both Wagner and MagIE were pulled, Magie to be reworked, Wagner removed entirely. Magee added to a different transfer once the rework was done, and continued. I still need to do more work on this with the numbers, but I have a feeling the odd ones like Dahlen and Lundgren may have been involved in some way as well.

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.
.

The way the Doyle was fixed was most likely be "stoning off" the "Nat'l " That there are a few showing small portions of the left foot of the N support that.
What's most likely was that some sheets were printed, the mistake was recognized - Maybe by the pressman, they were in NY after all, and both Doyles played for NY teams. Approval to fix the mistake probably took a few minutes. " hey boss, this isn't the Doyle who's on the Giants." " Really? let me see." " Ok, just stone off the Natl " The very few sheets then got sent on to whatever the next step was, and eventually got Piedmont backs. Not surprising at all. As you say, they could just as easily been a stack destined for SC or any of the other backs (Doyle NY Nat'l as a BL or Drum only subject....now there's a thing to ponder. )

Originally Posted by tedzan

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
.

I used 96 because it's your number. And because I think it's the best explanation for certain groups. It's less clear for other groups, and works very poorly for a others. So I sort of agree. Kind of like of you tell me it's cold in Maine. Yep, a fair portion of the time. Maybe not in July and August, but for sure in January and February. The rest of the year depends on whether you're from there or away.

(I think "hot " begins around 80, and "cold" starts around 20, maybe less. My wife figures "hot" as usually 90 + maybe higher. And "cold" starts around 60.



Discussing this stuff is fun for me. I'm always looking for those little bits of solid proof of any part of it, and nearly always learn something new about the set and/or the players. And the perspective of someone who's handled thousands of the cards is always interesting.

And I know very well that some of my ideas are well outside what's established. Frankly I'd like nothing more than to see a find of a load of ALC documents - Invoices, work orders, that sort of thing or an uncut sheet. No matter which idea it proved or disproved. Even if it proved all my ideas wrong.


Steve B