Hey folks....reprising my case for the "12 factor" in the T206 structure

[tedzan]

Your "broken record" replies are becoming boring (if not tedious). These comments of yours indicate that you do not understand the significance of
the Exclusive 12 series of either the T206 issue or the T205 issue.

Furthermore, it appears that you don't understand the significance of the 12 subjects in the 150-only series, or Elite 12 group of rare PIEDMONT 350
cards, or other T206 sub-sets.
.

But, then I may be misjudging you ......for perhaps you do understand these factors. However, your mindset is so stuck in this "17 or 34 myth" that
you are incapable of accepting facts regarding the T206 set's structures which have been established for years. You're bent on trying to "re-invent"
the T206 structure.

Look, I didn't "invent" this 12 Factor. It was inherent in the T206's structure. The numbers are there; and, they do not lie. Any logically thinking mind
realizes the mathematics of the various series in the T206 structure....and, that translates to printing formats which strongly suggest columns of 12
cards on a sheet.


Your latest thread.."Proof? T206 were printed in rows of more than twelve"..is so misleading that it is laughable. You have PROVED nothing with your
"SMOKE and MIRRORS" diagrams.

Much less claiming you have proof that the printed sheets were not formatted in rows of 12 cards.


Please do us both a favor.....do not respond anymore to my threads on the subject of printed sheet sizes and configurations....and, I'll refrain from
responding to your's.


T-Rex TED

[abothebear]

Hey Ted,

I enjoy your posts. And I know almost nothing about T206s, especially compared to you. But I don't understand your tone in your replies. You keep using "proof" for your 12 theory, and if you merely mean that there is proof that the subjects are in multiples of 12, then there is no problem... and no drama, because no one would deny that. But several of your claims sound like you should be using "evidence" instead of "proof." As in - evidence that seems to support your theory.

I think that other guy (sorry other guy for forgetting your name while typing this) is merely pointing out that your claims using "proof" (if I am reading your claim correctly) are bigger than the logic supports. I don't see what the big deal is. Following different lines of speculation can only help the quest to find out something more definitive in the long run.

(In my best Rodney King voice) "Can't we all just get along?"

George

[Brian Weisner]

Hey Ted,
Your lack of respect for other posters is ridiculous....As well as your insistence that everyone that post in your threads must agree or not post.
I guess you just want to continue to post your absolutes as fact, and bump them to the top everyday.... No one knows for sure how the T206's were printed, but it's a lot of fun for most of us to research and speculate ..

Be well Brian

[tedzan]

Brian W

You want to know what is "RIDICULOUS" ?

The following wise-ass comments by Erick........


On Thur 8/14....I reply to Erick's question........

Originally Posted by tedzan

As I noted above, Erick.

This is not new news, it has been previously discussed. The arrangement of the 48 subjects that I have displayed here is by no means a singular grouping of these subjects.

The 6 super-prints certainly exemplify this fact. They are repeated on subsequent series sheets (e.g. they are included again in the 66-subject Sovereign apple green sheet, also, T213, T214, T215 issues).
TED Z

Thur 8/14....Erick replies to my above response to him

Originally Posted by t206hound

I'm really confused... how can you assert that the 48 absolutely appeared together on a Piedmont 350 sheet when you also acknowledge that there were instances when they didn't appear together on a Piedmont 350 sheet? That's like saying I have a lot of money in my wallet, except when I don't.

[Edited] Just so that I make sure that we are discussing the same thing... I fully understand that between different series P350 vs S460 (superprints for example) that the layouts were different. Are you are saying that within a series (Piedmont 350 in this instance) that the layouts did or did not change?

Friday AM.....My wife and go on vacation to Cape May, NJ for 3 days


Meanwhile, Erick posts the following snide remarks to my non-response while I'm on vacation.

Fri 8/15..... still curious

Originally Posted by t206hound

Curious as to the answer to my questions...

Sat 8/16..... even more curious

Originally Posted by t206hound

Still waiting...

Sun 8/17..... well

Originally Posted by t206hound

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

Furthermore, upon my return I try to answer his question(s) and try to have a reasonable discussion with him regarding T206's.

But, all he keeps repeating is...."he's confused".



So, pardon me if I am quite ticked-off with his attitude.

Look, I don't expect that people agree with my theories. I present my ideas in order to stimulate some meaningful thoughts and discussion.

And, you damn well know this from our interactions in past years....when I considered you a great friend and had a lot of respect for you.



TED Z
..

[Runscott]

Ted, you know I've almost always got your back on this stuff, but...

I'm not seeing anything other than a difference of opinion. You seem really offended that others won't simply accept your theory as fact. Your theory does seem as good as any, and Erick is admitting that you could be right. But he's also showing how you could be wrong. I see no problem with that.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

So, pardon me if I am quite ticked-off with his attitude.

Hey Ted, I thought I had apologized for those posts, but looking back at the thread it appears I did not. So I'll do it now...

I apologize, Ted, for those snarky comments while you were on vacation. They were uncalled for; I was being impatient. With all sincerity, I'm sorry.

Note, that I thought that we did have a nice conversation at the end of that thread.

Anyway, since you don't want me to post any more in your threads, I'll respect your wishes, and this will be the last. Feel free to comment in any of mine, however.

[Howe’s Hunter]

In post 14 above, Ted lists several comments from another thread (not this one, or the one started by Erick that seems to have Ted so ticked) involving discussion about numbers of rows or columns in the T206 printing process.

Was there another thread about numbers of cards in the possible printing schematics of the T206s? That would almost make all this seem like a broken record. Becoming boring, if not tedious.

Maybe new thoughts are a good thing.

[Jantz]

I agree with Ted that the 12 factor applies to these 2 backs.

Sweet Caporal 350-460 factory #42
Red Hindu

These two backs mirror each other.

As far as the 12 factor with other backs, I haven't had a chance to do enough research to comment on them. The same with sheet size and subject count/position. I haven't done enough research to comment on them either.

Also agree with Ted that the Exclusive 12 players were on a sheet together.

I went out on a limb back in 2010 and started a thread about these 12 players being sheet partners and since then haven't seen any evidence/proof to make me think otherwise.

[Tao_Moko]

Until a sheet is discovered or recreated there can only be theory. I don't have any issue with the factor of 12 because it's seemingly evident. I also like Erick's approach and use of technology using scraps and miscuts to create a sheet. I may be late to the game but can you combine both efforts? Trying to prove the other right may be the way we get to the bottom of this.

Maybe we should start a thread where this community makes an effort to provide scans of all of our miscuts, scrap, printers marks and print defects? A resource for sheet builders to access.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

Maybe we should start a thread where this community makes an effort to provide scans of all of our miscuts, scrap, printers marks and print defects? A resource for sheet builders to access.

+1. Or a subcategory/place on the site where members can upload pictures of any of these oddball cards. I also think it would be a good place for anyone who owns/owned one of the rarest backs (Drum, Broadleaf 460, Uzit) to post scans. If we had enough scans of cards with Drum backs for example, it might be possible to try to work them together, jigsaw style. After all, there couldn't have been too many Drum sheets printed back in 1910.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

Until a sheet is discovered or recreated there can only be theory. I don't have any issue with the factor of 12 because it's seemingly evident. I also like Erick's approach and use of technology using scraps and miscuts to create a sheet. I may be late to the game but can you combine both efforts? Trying to prove the other right may be the way we get to the bottom of this.

Eric S

I like your term "seemingly evident" to describe my "12 factor".

One of the problems I have with Erick's approach is that the dimensions of the Lash p/c have not been stated, which would provide a frame of reference.

It appears to me to be the size of a 3" x 5" card, but I'm not sure of this.

Another problem is that the various layouts in the diagrams presented are of an arbitrary nature. It's just guesswork as to how many of these Lash p/c's
overlayed the hypothetical T206 scrap sheet.




TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Jantz

I agree with Ted that the 12 factor applies to these 2 backs.

Sweet Caporal 350-460 factory #42
Red Hindu

These two backs mirror each other.

As far as the 12 factor with other backs, I haven't had a chance to do enough research to comment on them. The same with sheet size and subject count/position. I haven't done enough research to comment on them either.

Also agree with Ted that the Exclusive 12 players were on a sheet together.

I went out on a limb back in 2010 and started a thread about these 12 players being sheet partners and since then haven't seen any evidence/proof to make me think otherwise.

I really appreciate your comments. You appear to be the lone voice here with anything meaningful to add to this thread.

I've been collecting this "Exclusive 12" sub-set since 2004, when I acquired an AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 Wheat; and, a red HINDU Tannehill.

I now have completed (or near completed) these 12 subjects with the following T206 back runs......

AMERICAN BEAUTY 460
El PRINCIPE de GALES....need 4 more
red HINDU......................need Sheckard

LENOX (does not exist)

OLD MILL (extremely rare......still looking for any)

PIEDMONT 460, Factory #42 (does not exist)


PIEDMONT 460, Factory #25
POLAR BEAR
SOVEREIGN 460
SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #30
SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42
SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory #42 (overprint)....need 6 more

UZIT (extremely rare......still looking for any)









And yes, there are many other aspects of the T206 series structure that conform to factors of 12. I have listed the various series numbers
in the introductory post here for anyone willing to consider.


It was great seeing you and talking with you at the National. Take care good buddy.


TED Z
.