I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet

[Luke]

Great work Pat!

[Pat R]

I'm really happy with the progression of this sheet the last two days.

The most recent discovery is a little involved and I'm terrible at trying
to explain these things via a computer but I'll give it a try.

I was pretty sure before but now I'm positive this sheet mirrors a SC150/649
sheet and I think this is one of two 649 sheets that were printed.

The recent Sheckard discovery left only two spots on this sheet that remained
with an unconfirmed 649 subject.

The names and empty slots (?) in red are the 649's.
Sheet [A-B] X Large updated - Copy.jpg

While working on the 649 same sheet position matching pairs combo I
came up with these two.
Bransfield%20-%20Ewing.jpg

Neither Bransfield or Ewing were on this sheet so if this PD150 sheet
mirrored a 649 sheet and there were only two sheets which I believe
is the case Branfield or Ewing would have to match one of the two
unfilled spots.

I haven't found a Bransfield that matches what I consider the main (lower)
scratch subject. But I do have a Bransfield that has a vertical scratch.
Bransfield Back.jpg

I thought this Branfield could be a continuation of these two Conroy vertical scratches.
Conroy [2] Back.jpgConroy [3] Back.jpg

While looking through Branfield scans I found this one that matches one of
the vertical Conroys.
Conroy - Branfield.jpg

I also found this Bransfield that I'm confident is a lighter version of a Conroy
secondary horizontal scratch.
Bransfield.jpg
Bransfield Front.jpg
Conroy Back [4] - Copy.jpg

Now only the Gibson slot remains to complete the empty 649 slot
and that would give us the layout of one 649 sheet and no layout
but all of the subjects that were on the 2nd sheet.

[steve B]

I'm amazed this came together so quickly. I'd figured on it taking a lot longer.

One thing I'm finding interesting.

I think the other group of the upper scratch fits to the right of the main field. And by the numbers, 17+7=24 so a 24 wide sheet with a few doubleprints satisfies the divisible by 17 group, and 24 or 12 satisfies the divisible by 12 group. I think it's entirely possible that both are right.

The clincher would be the numbers on something like the Hindu Sls, or the 649s. There should be 7 of each that are more common. (Or if you like, 10 that are tougher)

Steve B

[Pat R]

I located the last remaining SC150/649 OP subject scratch for this sheet
and I'm pretty confident this completes the horizontal layout of a PD150
sheet that was also used for a SC150/649 printing. The only spot that remains to be
filled is the scratch that matches the O'Leary which should be a
non 649 subject if it follows the pattern of the other 16 horizontal positions.

The new scratch is this Bresnahan that matches Gibson.
Sheet [A-B] X Gibson-Bresnahan updated.jpgBresnahan.jpg
Bresnashan-Gibson%20Scratch%20Match.jpg
Bresnahan Back.jpgGibson 1.jpg
Bresnahan Crop.jpgGibson 1 crop.jpg

I also found this Conroy which was one of the secondary scratches missing from this sheet.
Sheet [A-B] X Large updated Conroy 5.jpg
Conroy 5.jpg
Conroy 5 Crop.jpg

I think layout of the other 649 sheet can be established by comparing back
flaws and assigning their sheet position based on the subject they match from this sheet.

[Pat R]

[QUOTE=Pat R;1601932]I'm really happy with the progression of this sheet the last two days.

The most recent discovery is a little involved and I'm terrible at trying
to explain these things via a computer but I'll give it a try.

I was pretty sure before but now I'm positive this sheet mirrors a SC150/649
sheet and I think this is one of two 649 sheets that were printed.

The recent Sheckard discovery left only two spots on this sheet that remained
with an unconfirmed 649 subject.

The names and empty slots (?) in red are the 649's.
Attachment 251101

While working on the 649 same sheet position matching pairs combo I
came up with these two.
Attachment 251102

Neither Bransfield or Ewing were on this sheet so if this PD150 sheet
mirrored a 649 sheet and there were only two sheets which I believe
is the case, Branfield or Ewing would have to match one of the two
unfilled spots.

I haven't found a Bransfield that matches what I consider the main (lower)
scratch subject. But I do have a Bransfield that has a vertical scratch.
Attachment 251104

I thought this Branfield could be a continuation of these two Conroy vertical scratches.
Attachment 251105Attachment 251106

While looking through Branfield scans I found this one that matches one of
the vertical Conroys.
Attachment 251107

I also found this Bransfield that I'm confident is a lighter version of a Conroy
secondary horizontal scratch.
Attachment 251111
Attachment 251112
Attachment 251113


I found a Bransfield that matches the Conroy from the main scratch on this sheet.
Bransfield-Conroy Back.jpg
Bransfield-Conroy.jpg

[PhillipAbbott79]

I believe that I have a card which may debunk some of this, or at least adds some level of confusion to what you are trying to unravel.

It has scratches that cross each other or don't go in the direction of the ones that are in the image.

I can't remember the player. I would need to look.

Also, how can you be sure that a given card belongs in the position you have it in when the line on the card cuts through another card in the same spot?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

I believe that I have a card which may debunk some of this, or at least adds some level of confusion to what you are trying to unravel.

It has scratches that cross each other or don't go in the direction of the ones that are in the image.

I can't remember the player. I would need to look.

Also, how can you be sure that a given card belongs in the position you have it in when the line on the card cuts through another card in the same spot?

Without seeing the card I can't be sure but you might be talking about one
from another plate scratch sheet. There are four that have scratches that
cross each other from different directions on three different sheets.

There is a Seymour on this sheet
Semour%201a_1.jpg
Sheet%20F-B%20Highlighted.jpg

A Doyle and Stone on this sheet
Doyle%202_1.jpgStone%202_1.jpg
Sheet%20C-D%20Highlighted%20-%20Copy%20-%20Copy.jpg

And a Cobb on this sheet
Cobb%20_bat_%202.jpg
Sheet%20F%20-A%20Highlighted.jpg

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to with your other question but the back of the sheet in this
thread was used for two different fronts so there are two subjects with the same scratch for each position.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Yes. I am referring ones that you have shown.

I still see room for some of them to be transposed with other positions, but admittedly haven't studied everything THAT hard to take an opposing view.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Yes. I am referring ones that you have shown.

I still see room for some of them to be transposed with other positions, but admittedly haven't studied everything THAT hard to take an opposing view.

There are similar scratches in different positions but they don't work if you try to rearrange them. Some of the closest matches are Weimer/Pastorius with Powell/Goode and Criger/Davis,H. with Hinchman/Sheckard. I Have most of these cards in hand and I've experimented with them in different positions before I established this layout.
attachment.jpg
Weimer-Pastorius-Criger-Davis.jpgWeimer-Pastorius-Hinchman-Sheckard.jpg
Powell-Goode-Hinchman-Sheckard.jpgPowell-Goode-Criger-Davis.jpg

There is also a miscut SC150 Sheckard that shows part of Wilbur Goode.
Sheckard-Goode SC150.jpg