Proof? T206 were printed in rows of more than twelve

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by abothebear

I don't know if y'all saw my question in the plate scratch thread, but I noticed that though most of the focus was on the 150 series scratches, some of y'all were compiling a record of 350 plate scratches as well. Are their any back scratch puzzle matches that have fronts that match the subjects of these sraps?

I haven't followed the P350 back scratches info... I think Steve B was looking at the P150 and made a lot of progress. I'll dig a bit, though.

[atx840]

Mystery Solved. Pretty cool that it took less than a day.

http://www.peachridgeglass.com/2014/...eman-in-a-hat/

[t206hound]

Ask the experts... nice job reaching out to those folks. Pretty awesome that they came up with it that fast!

[Pat R]

Great Job Chris!!!

[t206hound]

You are better than imagery than I... the Miller card when turned upside down shows the red sweater/vest of the gentleman in the middle, as well as the jacket and tie of the man to his right (our left). It would be cool to see another of your overlay images (using the Maddox card as well).

It is interesting to see the blues and yellows not occurring together in the test images... yet both colors appear.

[tschock]

I haven't been following that closely, but if the same COMPLETE sheet is used for 2 different sized items, couldn't one determine the number X of T206 cards that could fit into the number Y of the Bitters? Or at least a factor thereof? While one might not be able to prove the number of T206 rows/columns, one could still prove what could NOT be the number of rows/columns of T206s on a sheet. Assuming the sheet wasn't trimmed for the second test run.

Apologies if this has already been discussed/proven.

[atx840]

I agree we can use the spacing of these PCs to help determine the minimum number of T206s stacked vertically, and possibly horizontally.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by t206hound

I haven't followed the P350 back scratches info... I think Steve B was looking at the P150 and made a lot of progress. I'll dig a bit, though.

I haven't had as much time recently.

Pat R has taken the 150 scratches far beyond what I did and I doubt I have the time to catch up. I have some scans from him, but I need to get photoshop or something similar to start the piecing together. My jigsaw puzzle way of drawing the scratches onto P150 blanks I printed isn't as effective.

The P350 scratches are much less common, and much less obvious.

I've seen a few that might be 150 scratches that didn't get completely resurfaced off. So it's possible the same plate was used for both if that's so, it's proof the backs were printed from stones rather than metal plates.

Some other avenues of study

Some apparent plate damage on the red Hindu backs. Maybe on the browns too, but I haven't seen any. Storing the stone from 1909 til 1911 seems odd, but maybe for a huge customer like ATC it was more normal.

Figuring out the approximate nimber of press runs. I believe there are three or more for both 150 and 350 and that the 150's and 350's were entirely different. I'm not as sure for 350/460 But I'm fairly confident that the two series were different.
Meaning the non-series like OM should be findable in both a 350 and 460 front - likely very minor differences.

Getting an idea of the number stacked by studying the tougher cards. Magie, Plank, Wagner, O'Hara stl. and Demitt stl. were probably only on one sheet each and figuring out identifiably different examples of each should give us the number vertically. I've done some work on Magie, and I'm sorting the types. It's a bit easier since there are back differences that match front differences and that show in the typical small scan.

Digitally reassembling some of the groups of scraps. None of my BB Sl cards fit each other, but may match another I just don't have enough scans. (And it's very hard, I have had a "big" batch of a nonsport set that is typically handcut and even with the only full set and scans of nearly a set of doubles, all from the same source, there aren't any matches)
This effort on the Lash's backs is excellent as far as getting a few pairs that are certain.

In Stamps this whole process is called "plating" - figuring out the position of each stamp from a plate based on tiny consistent differences. Even with access to large quantities, blocks and strips, and knowing in some cases exactly how many plates there were it can take one person a full collecting lifetime (figure around 20-40 years) to get enough to be sure.
T206 is orders of magnitude harder. I don't expect to see what I'd call solid proof of a full sheet layout in my lifetime. Maybe Wazoo or some of the younger collectors will.

Steve B

PS- As an example of how long some things can take. In 2012 I wrote an article on a stamp I'd found. Other than showing a small portion of a plate number at the top it was very common. Except that plate 40 was used on an experimental press and there were only around 24000 impressions. That it existed and how many impressions were made was published in around 1901. The only time it had been described in any article was 1932, and that article might have been wrong another plate had been reworked and the early stamps are very similar to plate 40. Experts had begun to think that the 1901 book was incorrect there were a few other mistakes, maybe this was another.
Until I found a stamp showing a bit of the number 40. Now we all know for sure that plate 40 was used and stamps issued. But out of 100 positions only one can be accurately described, and so far there's only one known stamp from plate 40. And that's since 1873! (There are a few that are probably from plate 40, but very few survivors out of 240,000 printed)

[t206hound]

I've asked about the actual dimensions of the Lash's Bitters postcards and the approximate release date, but to this point have not received a response. The introduction of the second postcard front, however, has made me believe that my initial recreation in post 17 was incorrect.

Knowing the two front images yields new clues, specifically that some of the cards I thought were on the same sheet, probably were on separate sheets. This appears to be the case because there were two "runs" for each postcard front on each sheet: one rightside up, and one upside down.

You will notice, in the animations, that the overprint backs skew slightly on their starting position, but I believe I have the size and spacing equivalent in each. You will also notice that in the two sheet animations, that separate color passes for each front are represented. In the first sheet, the "big hat man" (blues) appears right side up, and on the second sheet his "mates" (reds) appear upside down. The is opposite is true of the other postcard front. On the first sheet, you can see the yellows and oranges of the bar upside down, but that same images blues are right side up in sheet two.

This knowledge has me revise one sheet to reveal what appears to be cards within seven columns of each other (listed from the back view left to right): Brashear, Rhodes, Rudolph, Schlafly, Bliss. It is highly likely, based on a ghost image of a Piedmont 350, that the card to the right of Bliss (again from the back view) was Freeman. Based on the layout of the T206s and the alignment with the Lash's post card images, it is highly likely that there was a run of seven T206s that span at least two postcards.

Note that the card in row four is also a Rudolph (same column) and that card is obviously not the last row on the sheet since the (upside down) Lash's front has a "bottom" occur there. Here's an animation showing the three overprint runs and how the cards align:

[t206hound]

The more interesting combination is the second grouping. Again, I've lined up the three separate Lash's images (the postcard back and both postcard fronts) so that there is alignment with the arrangement of the T206s.



In this animation, again the T206s line up perfectly with each of the three postcard runs (back and two fronts). My vertical lines are equal spaced. This demonstrates a run of 11 cards (with gaps, listed from the back view left to right): Maddox, Barger, Nattress, Barbeau, Miller (note that we observe the adjacency of Miller and Barbeau in a P350 ghost as well). We can make an assumption that the Miller could be the far right card on the sheet (again, from the back view). But based on the back of the Maddox card, one can safely assume that there were cards to its left, likely three more.







Now this still may not "prove" anything, but in my opinion, this is additional evidence that can help us get closer to understanding sheet size and number of cards per sheet.



I will also note that the Graham card is an outlier. While it matches the imagery of the backs of the first sheet above, it's vertical cuts do not fall in line relative to the other cards represented by my image. My assumption is that it came from a third scrap sheet.

[Matvoo]

Very inteeresting info

[atx840]

Picked up a LB PC, scanned alongside Maddox for size comparison.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by atx840

Picked up a LB PC, scanned alongside Maddox for size comparison.

Congrats on the new PC pickup, Chris. Quite awesome how you do the rotating stuff. What a great ancillary item. I love that kind of collecting...

[Ladder7]

eBay item # 311539399729

To whomever may own one of these scraps. The Bitter's postcard is available -not mine
May be a nice companion piece

[Pat R]

This is one of my favorite threads, I was going through my folder of ghost image scans and it reminded me of this thread.

There was a lot of progress made on the Lash's cards but it stalled out for some reason and I think there's room for more progress to be made on these.

I think you can tentatively put Freeman between Maddox and Bliss on this sheet.
Bliss-Freeman.jpg

There's also a Barger ghost but I'm not sure who the other subject is, maybe Natress? and it's a SC350/30 not a PD350.
Barger-Natress.jpg

Personally I think all the Lash's cards came from one scrap sheet and the height and possibly the width of the sheet needs to be increased to get all of them to fit. I know they are a different series but the plate scratch sheets show that the same subject was used in numerous vertical rows two of them show a minimum of 14 high.
I think at some point during the print group 1 printing they switched from printing a single vertical subject on the sheets to using two and that would put the minimum same vertical subjects at 7 on a sheet.

This is the minimum height of each sheet/partial sheet as indicated by the known plate scratches.
Plate scratch sheets 1-4.jpg

[atx840]

Nice Pat! I've started to work on the Lash cards again, slow progress.