W515-1 Strip Card Printing Plate?

This plate was purchased yesterday by a friend of mine and I'm trying to show him evidence I have that would make it impossible to be an original w515 printing plate. The two factors are that existing full strips seem to establish that the set was printed in chronological order and therefore on the plate, Bancroft (card #4 should be to the left of the Ruth (card #3) since the plate is reversed, and the Cobb (card #10) would not appear adjacent to either of these cards and would actually be the 10th card on a 10 card strip. He is being told that the plate has been in the family and was handed down by a great uncle who supposedly worked in the factory that produced the W515's. My advice to my buddy was to share this evidence and cancel the deal, but he seems to really want this to be real despite proof that it really can't be an original plate used to produce W515's as we know them. Could someone please chime in on this, I'm referring my buddy to this site for additional input so please share freely.

The first picture illustrates evidence that full strips included 10 subjects. Picture two illustrates that the printing was done chronologically (subjects 31-40) in the strip shown. Picture three also illustrates chronology and that the Bancroft (card #4) comes after Ruth (card #3), which makes the plate in question incorrect without even mentioning Cobb who shouldn't be adjacent to either Ruth or Bancroft. This could be a lot of things, but it cannot be an original W515 printing plate used to produce W515 Strip cards as we know them.

[Cozumeleno]

Shouldn't there be vertical dashed lines on it, too, in between the cards to indicate the cut line? Perhaps it wouldn't show up in the scans, but the seller took close ups that allow you to see it reasonably well. Using the eBay magnifying function, I can't even make out a trace of them.

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Shouldn't there be vertical dashed lines on it, too, in between the cards to indicate the cut line? Perhaps it wouldn't show up in the scans, but the seller took close ups that allow you to see it reasonably well. Using the eBay magnifying function, I can't even make out a trace of them.

I thought the same thing but gave the benefit of the doubt to the seller. I don't see any indication of them on the plates after additional scrutiny though.

[bnorth]

The spacing between the cards look off also. Plus the cards are in the wrong spot making it IMPOSSIBLE to be what it is described as. Your friend needs to return it immediately if not sooner.

[steve B]

The easy bit is that it is a printing plate.

That's where "easy" ends.
It is definitely NOT the sort of plate used for lithography.
The stones used were/are solid limestone and usually fairly thick, 2-4 inches.
Lithography plates are typically aluminum, with a coating on one side.
By 1923 stones for commercial lithography were less common.


What this is - Is a plate from one of the forms of typography. The suggestion that it's from either a newspaper ad of some kind or perhaps a book is a good one.
It's still a pretty cool piece, making them wasn't always cheap, which is why some old publications bragged about how many photographs either color or otherwise were included.
A bit of work should actually let the owner produce a print, maybe not a great print since the halftone screening is a pit rough, but a print.

I have a couple from one of the postcard sets, I've never printed from them, but it's possible.

Steve B