E90-1s have plate scratches too!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by edhans

Pat,
That blue mark on the Tannehill looks like a slightly misaligned color pass. Might be difficult to identify. I did find a Lumley that may correspond. I would consider the two potential sheet mates. Haven't had time to look any further. Hope to do so this weekend. Interesting observation on the Marquard/Tenney scratches. I'm sure I would have missed that one. Thanks again for all your efforts. Happy Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too Ed.
I thought a Blue color shift from the grass on Oakes might be a possibility
Too. It's hard to try and line them up with different scans, they get distorted
when you try and resize them.
Tannehill%20-%20Copy - Copy - Copy.jpg

It makes it a little more of a challenge with the similar scratches but that's ok
I think with some time we can figure it out. The Piedmonts have a couple that are similar and that's why when I got seriously involved in it I decided I need to have the cards in hand for accuracy.

These are all plate scratches. I've added quite a few since these pictures were taken.
DSCN0383.jpg
DSCN0385.jpg
DSCN0392.jpg
DSCN0399.jpg

[Pat R]

ED, I found a scratch that matches Tenney. There are two Engle scratches so far
and one of them is the same as Tenney.
Engle 2 Matches Tenney.jpgTenney.jpg

Here's the other Engle
Engle.jpg

[tedzan]

Hi Ed

You and I have had some interesting discussions regarding E90-1 cards these past 10 years . Glad to hear you still have your set.
I put this 120-card set together in the mid-1990's. In recent years, when the price of the Joe Jax went "bananas", I broke up this
set and sold 77 % of it. Shown below are 10 of the 28 cards I kept.

Anyhow, none of these 28 cards have any of the so-called "plate scratches" on their backs. Not even the slightest trace of any "ink
streaks".

Furthermore, I compared notes with a fellow E90-1 collector nearby in Pennsylvania, who has a complete 120-card set (and approx.
60 dupes). And the only cards in his collection with "ink streaks" are Demmitt, Joss (portrait), Overall, Phelps, Stone (left arm), Jeff
Sweeney & Roy Thomas. Also, he has an extra Joss (portrait) and Jeff Sweeney which do NOT have "ink streaks". Total = 208 cards.

This results to only 3.3 % of this particular 208-card sample with this printing anomaly. In the past 25 years, I have seen many E90
cards, that I would venture to say a larger sample of these cards will yield even a lower percentage. Therefore, can we really rely on
such inconsistencies in attempting to determine a valid sheet layout ?

I don't think so.









. .












Incidentally, Ed......your sample percentage (4/125 = 3.2 %) coincides with the sample percentage that I noted above (3.3 %).


TED Z
.

[irishdenny]

Here's One from Mr. Keeler...
The Plate Scratch Runs Across Mr. Keeler's Chest!

Curious...
Does Anyone Else See the # "2"
On the Bottom RiGHT SiDe of His Shirt!?
It's appears in the Black/White Area
To the RiGHT, Under the "Y" From the N Y Insignia...
If You Stare at it, the "2" Comes More ta Life!

Reminds me of the old Cards,
Where they ask You if You can See the Dog in the Picture!?
Can You?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by irishdenny

Here's One from Mr. Keeler...
The Plate Scratch Runs Across Mr. Keeler's Chest!

Curious...
Does Anyone Else See the # "2"
On the Bottom RiGHT SiDe of His Shirt!?
It's appears in the Black/White Area
To the RiGHT, Under the "Y" From the N Y Insignia...
If You Stare at it, the "2" Comes More ta Life!

Reminds me of the old Cards,
Where they ask You if You can See the Dog in the Picture!?
Can You?

Hi Denny,

I have come across a few E90-1's with scratches through the front in my search.
attachmentQ2KJX7I7.jpg

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Hi Denny,

I have come across a few E90-1's with scratches through the front in my search.
Attachment 252299

Well Patrick...
Didn't Take You Long before You Found "The Dog"!
In Regards to Collecting E90-1 w/ Plate Scatches,
Seems THeY FiND me more Often
THaN I FiND THeM!

I Guess we Need ta Move OVaR...
Cause Here Come the T206 Guys

WHaT Do You Make of the "2" oN Mr. Keeler's Card?
JuST Curious ta See if There are Any Who MiGHT Have an Opinion oN'em!?

As Always...

[edhans]

Hello Ted,
I was anticipating you'd weigh in on this thread, though I'd hoped your reply would be a more constructive one. I don't know if we'll ever be able to present a hypothetical E90-1 sheet from the scratches. Pat, as usual, has done some terrific work and we already have several dozen examples, including neighbors and matches. We've found evidence of double (or more) printing on a sheet, which surprised me considerably. At this point we lack the double name and ghost images that have helped advance the T206 research. We've only been at a week, and I remain hopeful that more evidence will surface, perhaps in a form we little expect.

Reconstructing the sheet; or sheets, obviously; wasn't necessarily the ultimate goal of the project. My goal was merely a deeper understanding of the manner of distribution of E90-1s. It has been obvious to me for years that the long-held three series theory is woefully inadequate in explaining the varying levels of difficulty among the cards. A chance observation on a recent acquisition set us off on this voyage of discovery.

Could I impose on you (or your friend) to post scans of the cards with scratches? I'm expecially interested to view the Demmitt to see if it matches any of the two we already have. Two of the finest E90-1 sets in existence reside right here in Western New York (mine is not one of them). I need to get those two to check their cards as well. And I hope that other evidence will continue to arrive, so we can advance this little project.

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed so far; and expecially to Pat, whose work I continue to view with amazement. Keep 'em coming!

[Pat R]

Ed, Here's a scratch that's on three different subjects.
Clarke Matches Grant & Hartzell (Batting).jpgHartzell (Batting) 1.jpg
Grant Matches Hartzell (Batting).jpg

This Bender is one of only a few that has a left to right scratch, most of the
scratches are right to left.
Bender.jpg

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Ed

You and I have had some interesting discussions regarding E90-1 cards these past 10 years . Glad to hear you still have your set.
I put this 120-card set together in the mid-1990's. In recent years, when the price of the Joe Jax went "bananas", I broke up this
set and sold 77 % of it. Shown below are 10 of the 28 cards I kept.

Anyhow, none of these 28 cards have any of the so-called "plate scratches" on their backs. Not even the slightest trace of any "ink
streaks".

Furthermore, I compared notes with a fellow E90-1 collector nearby in Pennsylvania, who has a complete 120-card set (and approx.
60 dupes). And the only cards in his collection with "ink streaks" are Demmitt, Joss (portrait), Overall, Phelps, Stone (left arm), Jeff
Sweeney & Roy Thomas. Also, he has an extra Joss (portrait) and Jeff Sweeney which do NOT have "ink streaks". Total = 208 cards.

This results to only 3.3 % of this particular 208-card sample with this printing anomaly. In the past 25 years, I have seen many E90
cards, that I would venture to say a larger sample of these cards will yield even a lower percentage. Therefore, can we really rely on
such inconsistencies in attempting to determine a valid sheet layout ?

I don't think so.

Incidentally, Ed......your sample percentage (4/125 = 3.2 %) coincides with the sample percentage that I noted above (3.3 %).


TED Z
.

Hi Ted,
I know your post is directed at Ed but I would like to respond too.

No offense but I don't think you understand the plate scratches. I would be happy to bring some plate scratch cards and meet with you sometime in
the future and have a discussion.

I'm not sure how they occurred but I think it probably happened in the moving
of them in the printing process.

Some of the stones were very large and I have seen pictures from around
that time period where they were stored on racks similar to this.
1 Litography_archive_of_the_Bayerisches_Vermessungsamt.jpg
1 sl-374.jpg

I'm sure a large number of sheets were printed before the scratches occurred
and only a small number would have the scratches on them. Using this test
sheet I made you can see only 25% of the cards have a scratch (9 out of 36).
1 E90-1 test sheet.jpg
So combining this with the number of sheets that were printed before the scratch occurred would result in a low % although I think 3.3% is too low
of an estimate.

I think describing them as inconsistent is incorrect. The great thing about
them is they are very consistent. A scratch on a subject from a particular
sheet position is always in the same place.

Here's multiple examples of a Seymour scratch.
Seymour 1 Group Back.jpg
Seymour 1 Group.jpg
There are two on ebay right now with that same exact scratch.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...cAAOSw3KFWchuH
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...4AAOSwnGJWSo7F

That Seymour scratch is on this sheet.
1 Sheet%20F-B[2].jpg

Here's the Seymour under that one.
Seymour 2.jpg
Seymour 1-Seymour 2.jpg

Cicotte is next to Seymour on that sheet and Here's some of them.

This Cicottte lines up with the Seymour's I posted above.
Cicotte 1.jpg
Cicotte 1-seymour.jpg

This pair
Cicotte 4.jpg
Seymour 2.jpg
Cicotte 4 -seymour 2.jpg

And another pairing
Cicotte 5.jpg
Seymour 6.jpg
Cicotte 5-Seymour 6.jpg

And there's also a front mark that shows Cicotte and Seymour were next to each other on this sheet.
1 Seymour%20_5_ - Copy.jpg
1 Seymour [5] - Copy - Copy.jpg

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Hi Ted,
I know your post is directed at Ed but I would like to respond too.

No offense but I don't think you understand the plate scratches. I would be happy to bring some plate scratch cards and meet with you sometime in
the future and have a discussion.

I'm not sure how they occurred but I think it probably happened in the moving
of them in the printing process.

Pat

I fully understand what you refer to as "plate scratches". I've followed your posts regarding your Piedmont 150 analysis.
Furthermore, when I was a teenager, I worked as an apprentice in a print shop and I am familiar with printing practices.

I respect all the time & effort you have put into your T206 project. However, we are now talking about E90-1 cards. E90
cards were printed by a Lithographic firm in Philadelphia (1908-1910). The T206's were printed by American Litho (NYC)
and it's my understanding that state-of-the-art rotary off-set presses were used to print these cards.

I took the trouble of scanning Ebay's current listing of E90-1 cards. There are 178 unique E90-1 cards listed whose backs
are visible in this listing. Only 7 of these cards exhibit "ink streaks"....resulting in 3.9 %.

The grand total (of this group and the group noted in Post #36) is 386 samples. Only 14 of these cards have "ink streaks"
resulting in a mere 3.6 %.

I repeat: such a limited sampling (plus the varying characteristics of the "ink streaks") of these E90-1 cards certainly does
not make for a reliable (or scientific) method for attempting to determine valid sheet layout, or series structure ?


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Pat

I fully understand what you refer to as "plate scratches". I've followed your posts regarding your Piedmont 150 analysis.
Furthermore, when I was a teenager, I worked as an apprentice in a print shop and I am familiar with printing practices.

I respect all the time & effort you have put into your T206 project. However, we are now talking about E90-1 cards. E90
cards were printed by a Lithographic firm in Philadelphia (1908-1910). The T206's were printed by American Litho (NYC)
and it's my understanding that state-of-the-art rotary off-set presses were used to print these cards.

I took the trouble of scanning Ebay's current listing of E90-1 cards. There are 178 unique E90-1 cards listed whose backs
are visible in this listing. Only 7 of these cards exhibit "ink streaks"....resulting in 3.9 %.

The grand total (of this group and the group noted in Post #36) is 386 samples. Only 14 of these cards have "ink streaks"
resulting in a mere 3.6 %.

I repeat: such a limited sampling (plus the varying characteristics of the "ink streaks") of these E90-1 cards certainly does
not make for a reliable (or scientific) method for attempting to determine valid sheet layout, or series structure ?


TED Z
.

Ted,
I don't see how where they were printed makes a difference. A scratch is a
scratch and where they were printed shouldn't factor into it.

Neither should the %. If enough scratches are found to connect them and
come up with a sheet or partial sheet layout it doesn't matter how many
cards you have to look through to find them. I have saved scans from quite
a few that are listed on ebay and there are a lot more than the seven you found.

I didn't want to go back and look through all of them but I did look through
a few pages and found twelve but I could only attach nine links.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...sAAOSw4shX60qP

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-G...sAAOSwx2dYDj3P

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...8AAOSw9IpX1Jsl
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-Amer...IAAMXQXZZReKdd

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...sAAOSwnDZT99lV
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...gAAOSwKrxUY311
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...8AAOSwTA9X61yw

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...AAAOSwu4BVoUuB
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-E90-...YAAOSwqfNXj~QP
I also don't follow what you mean by varying ink streaks, they were caused
by something scratching the surface it's not like someone drew a straight line
through the back plate.

[Leon]

It seems the only reason where something is mfg'd would be important will be if we can find the press that had the scratch or are able to put a sheet together by locating it? But generally I would agree that where a card is produced doesn't really help with where they were located on a sheet. Those scratches might help though....

Originally Posted by Pat R

Ted,
I don't see how where they were printed makes a difference. A scratch is a
scratch and where they were printed shouldn't factor into it.

Neither should the %. If enough scratches are found to connect them and
come up with a sheet or partial sheet layout it doesn't matter how many
cards you have to look through to find them. I have saved scans from quite
a few that are listed on ebay and there are a lot more than the seven you found.

I didn't want to go back and look through all of them but I did look through
a few pages and found twelve but I could only attach nine links.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...sAAOSw4shX60qP

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-G...sAAOSwx2dYDj3P

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...8AAOSw9IpX1Jsl
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-Amer...IAAMXQXZZReKdd

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...sAAOSwnDZT99lV
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...gAAOSwKrxUY311
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...8AAOSwTA9X61yw

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-A...AAAOSwu4BVoUuB
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-E90-...YAAOSwqfNXj~QP
I also don't follow what you mean by varying ink streaks, they were caused
by something scratching the surface it's not like someone drew a straight line
through the back plate.

[tedzan]

Hi Ed

Sorry, that I interjected my opinion. After all the years we have known each other, we have had some meaningful discussions on this Candy set.
But, my post appears to be causing problems; and, possibly alienating our friendship.

But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).

Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).

This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941


Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.

TED Z
.

[irishdenny]

Seems We Have 3 Scratches Thru the Bat!

Pat R's 3rd Mr. Mathewson, Mike's Mr. Miller Fielding & my Mr. Stone's(LHV)!

I Wonder if We Keep Studying these if we Would Eventually be Able to Figure Out Weather THeY Came From the East or West Coast Produced Cards!?
Or at Least Separate the Production SiGHTs!?

I do Believe THaT Mr. Mark MaCrae 's Deep Due Diligence has brought ta LiGHT
Sum Really Cool Evidence! (imho anyways)

[Pat R]

It's been 1 1/2 years since the last post in this thread but here are a
few new ones to add to the list.

Bradley E90-1.jpg

E90-1 Brown.jpg

E90-1 Jennings.jpg

Miller E90-1 B.jpg

Keeler E90-1.jpg

There are two new chase scratches

this one

Chase E90-1 4.jpg

and this one which is also an exact match with a new Clarke scratch

Chase E90-1 3.jpg Clarke E90-1.jpg

Chase E90-1 3 - Copy.jpg

some of the scratches are hard to see with the smaller scans
you can veiw larger scans using this link all of the newer scratches
are at the end of the album.
https://imageevent.com/patrickr/e901platescratches?n=0