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

[steve B]

Nice work Pat.

I've been looking at Magies, and there are some flawed backs that I'm fairly sure don't appear with any other front, even the Magees.

I need to write it up eventually, but I also think there were at least three different printings of most fronts in the 150 series. With the less common cards being printed only once and not necessarily on the same sheet.

I'm still thinking the 8 from the middle fit to the right of the sheet layout. But being sure of that would require matching a so far unconfirmed weimer/pastorious with the O'Leary.

I've also thought that more than one printing plant may have been involved. Nothing really solid to base it on, but a hunch based on the number issued and the other sets that share some of the pictures. The orange borders were produced here in Lowell, and share a few pictures. The company specialized in novelty candy boxes. One day I want to get to the local historical society and see if they have any info on the company which as far as I can tell moved to Lowell from Boston around 1910 and went out of business shortly after that.

Steve B

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

Nice work Pat.

I've been looking at Magies, and there are some flawed backs that I'm fairly sure don't appear with any other front, even the Magees.

I need to write it up eventually, but I also think there were at least three different printings of most fronts in the 150 series. With the less common cards being printed only once and not necessarily on the same sheet.

I'm still thinking the 8 from the middle fit to the right of the sheet layout. But being sure of that would require matching a so far unconfirmed weimer/pastorious with the O'Leary.

I've also thought that more than one printing plant may have been involved. Nothing really solid to base it on, but a hunch based on the number issued and the other sets that share some of the pictures. The orange borders were produced here in Lowell, and share a few pictures. The company specialized in novelty candy boxes. One day I want to get to the local historical society and see if they have any info on the company which as far as I can tell moved to Lowell from Boston around 1910 and went out of business shortly after that.

Steve B

Thanks Steve, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the middle scratch is a
third horizontal scratch on this sheet. There are two subjects (Conroy and Williams) with three different horizontal scratches. I Just realized that I didn't
update the sheet to include the third Conroy.

Here's the updated sheet
Sheet [A-B] X Large updated.jpg

Here are the 3 Conroy's
Conroy [1] Back.jpg
Conroy 5 Back.jpg
Conroy Back [4].jpg

and the 3 William's
Williams [1] Back.jpg
Williams Back [3].jpg
Williams Back [4].jpg

[Pat R]

I found a new scratch in the row of the upper scratch on my template. It's
a Criger in the Criger/Davis slot.
Sheet [A-B] X Large updated - Copy.jpg
Criger%203%20Back%20-%20Copy - Copy.jpgCriger%203%20-%20Copy.jpg

It's a slow process because these are difficult to find. For example
all of these scratches are harder to find than a Mur'ay, nodgrass "error" ect...
and Criger/Davis is a good example to explain why.

They call them errors but they're not, it was caused by something that interfered with a letter in one of the positions for that subject on the sheet.

There is a Davis that is missing a letter like the "errors" that have been
catalogued. It's missing part of the R in AMER so it looks like AMEP.
Davis%20H__1.jpg

This Davis also happens to be one of the plate scratches.
img392.jpg
Sheet [A-B] X Large updated.jpg

Davis and Criger occupy the same positions on this sheet.
Here is the Criger with the same scratch as the Davis "AMEP".
Criger- Davis Amep Match Back.jpgCriger- Davis Amep Match.jpg

So to start with there is the difficulty of finding these at about the same rate
as the "error" cards and there are a few other things to factor in. The
scans have to be good enough to show the sratches and the ink in the
area of the scratch has to be dark enough.

It also has to be a Piedmont 150 back, most of the "error" cards are found
on other backs with the exception of Dopner which has only been found on a
Polar Bear back so far. I don't think a Dopner will be found any other back
because in my opinion the Polar Bears were printed separate from all the other backs.

Here are a couple of Davis Amep's with a SC150/649 back.
Daves%20AMEP%20SC%20150-649%20-%20Copy%20-%20Copy.jpg
Daves%20AMEP%20SC%20150-649.jpgDaves%20AMEP%20SC%20150-649%20Back.jpg

Here is a high resolution scan of the Davis "Amep" and Criger scratch. The top one is Davis and the bottom one is Criger.
Davis, H [1] Back.jpg
Criger [2] Back.jpg

Quite a few collectors say the hunt is the most fun and it is for me too.
I get a lot of enjoyment out of searching for and finding these.

[Leon]

Great research, Pat!! I remember doing some minutia collecting in my type card days.

[Pat R]

I'm bumping this thread for two cards that relate to this sheet that I feel very fortunate to find and even better to have had the opportunity to purchase them.

The cards are these two specific Conroy and Williams cards.

[IMG][/IMG]

I already have most of the plate scratches on this sheet including these two cards.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

What's exciting about the new pair is I have very little doubt that they were on the same specific sheet together.

They have identical off center left to right and top to bottom miscuts

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

I usually remove all of my plate scratches from the holders but I think it's cool that they have consecutive cert numbers and these two specific cards were printed next to each other 114 years ago.

They even have identical defects that i circled from a chip in the cutting blade.

[IMG][/IMG]

[stutor]

Wow Pat. That’s incredible. Separated at birth and reunited over 110 years later. So cool. Thank you for sharing.

[Kevin]

My stars, this is amazing.