T206....PIEDMONT vs EPDG cards in 350 series and 460 series

[tedzan]

I am very certain that the EPDG cards (37 subjects) and the PIEDMONT 460 Factory #42 cards (9 subjects) are mutually-exclusive.



460-only series El Principe de Gales................37 subjects (COMPLETE)

Abbaticchio (blue sleeves)
Ball (Cleveland)
Bell (follow thru)
Bergen (catching)
Bescher (hands over head)
Bridwell (portrait-cap)
Camnitz (hands over head)
Camnitz (arm at side)
Chance (bat)
Crandall (portrait-cap)
Devore
Duffy
Larry Doyle (portrait)
Ford
Frill
Gandil
Geyer
Herzog (Boston)
Howell (hand on waist)
Hummel

Lake, St. Louis (ball)
McGraw (portrait-cap)
McGraw (glove at hip)
Meyers (portrait)
Murray (portrait)
Needham
Oldring (batting)
Overall (blue sky)
Payne
Pfeffer
Schulte (back view)
Sheckard (glove)
Smith (Brooklyn)
Stovall (bat)
Tannehill (Chicago)
Tinker (bat on shoulder)
Wheat

460-only series PIEDMONT 460, Factory #42......9 subjects (COMPLETE)

Chase (Trophy)
Latham
Marquard (follow thru)
Merkle (throwing)
Schlei (portrait)
Schlei (batting)
Schaefer (Washington)
Seymour (portrait)
Wiltse (portrait-cap)


Other Net54 sources claim that the following 4 subjects are confirmed.

Chance (batting)
Bergen (catching)
Murray (portrait)
Overall (blue sky)

My research indicates that these 4 subjects will never be found with PIEDMONT 460, Factory #42 backs.



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Hey Luke

Where's your evidence that EPDG cards were printed before PIEDMONT ?

At least I have provided 2 examples of circumstantial evidence to prove my case.

What do you have to support your argument ?
Some questionable "scratches" on the backs of T206's ? ? That's laughable.

Hey, when I presented my " PIEDMONT first " theory back in 2006, quite a number of Net54 T206er's thought it was logical.
Based on what we know of American Litho's printing practices, and the design of the various series of the T206's.


TED Z
.

[Thromdog]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=231030

Good info Ted.

The thread above is in regards to a print flaw found on the front of Owens that's present on Piedmont 150's and EPDGs but not on any known Piedmont 350's.....which is the reason there is thinking that EPDGs could have been printed before the Piedmont 350's.

Again, a theory that has some possibility.

[Thromdog]

And keep doing what you do PatR and Ted! Love your threads.

[Luke]

Ted,

No I never said I had proof. I was very careful to say all I have is a theory. I was just asking in that way because in the other thread you said you had proof that refuted my theory. If there was proof I just wanted to know about it.

My theory is just that many of the Elite 11 guys clearly were printed for the entire EPDG print run (because most are no more rare than any other EPDG from the 150-350 series). On the other hand, the Piedmont 350s are clearly short-printed and had to have been pulled early.

In other words, it looks to me like when they pulled Tom Jones from production of further Piedmont 350 sheets, they didn't pull him from any EPDG sheets. And the most likely reason for that would be that EPDGs were already printed at that point.

But again I was just asking for clarification because I want to learn as much as I can about the set. It doesn't really seem like either part of your theory is relevant though. I don't think anyone was thinking that Joe Doyle's EPDG was printed at the same time as the 150-350 Subjects. And the statement "Piedmont was always printed first" it's kind a just a thing you can say that doesn't really mean anything if it can't be proven. I mean, you could be right that they always printed Piedmont backs first, but they could have viewed EPDG as the last back to be printed in the 150 portion of the 150-350 Series and Piedmont 350 as the first back of the 350 portion. There's really no way to know. So we have to just use the info available to us.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey Luke

Where's your evidence that EPDG cards were printed before PIEDMONT ?

At least I have provided 2 examples of circumstantial evidence to prove my case.

What do you have to support your argument ?
Some questionable "scratches" on the backs of T206's ? ? That's laughable.

Hey, when I presented my " PIEDMONT first " theory back in 2006, quite a number of Net54 T206er's thought it was logical.
Based on what we know of American Litho's printing practices, and the design of the various series of the T206's.


TED Z
.

Ted,

The plate scratches weren't even brought up in this discussion. It's interesting
that you find them "laughable" since you probably haven't done any research
on them and it's likely you have ignored the threads so I will post a
brief demonstration of how they could be significant.

You claim that they are a few random scratches but there are actually over
250 different confirmed scratches and they are not random. The same exact
scratches appear several different times on the same subjects.

Here are three Seymour's that I own with the same exact scratch in the same place.

Seymour Group Back.jpg
Seymour Group.jpg

There were three Seymour's with this scratch on ebay one of them sold
but here are links to the other two.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...QAAOSw44BYkAOQ

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...4AAOSwnGJWSo7F

I have been in the ceramic tile installation business for over 40 years.
I learned the trade from my father and one of the things he taught me
was drawing a line through the backs of the tiles to keep them in order
for certain situations. For instance if you have a horizontal row of tiles
ending at an angled ceiling the best way to get a nice cut
so they all line up is to take the measurement on the two ends of that
row of tiles line them up and draw your cut line with a straight edge. When you
do that you can end up with similar cuts so he taught me what to do to keep
from getting them mixed up when you're installing them on the wall.
He showed me that if you turn them over and draw an angled line through
all of them and mark the ends with a slash mark this way if you get them mixed up
all you have to do is turn them over and match the lines up on the backs.

That is basically what we're trying to accomplish with the plate scratches.

I did a quick small sample with a group of cards.

I lined them up scanned them and printed it out.
img469.jpg

drew an angled line through the back.
img470.jpg

then I cut them into individual "cards"
img471.jpg
img478.jpg

This next part you're going to have to take my word for but I mixed them all up and lined them up using only the marks on the backs and scanned them.
img472.jpg


So maybe you find the plate scratches laughable but I find them interesting
and a way to possibly find the layouts and size of a few of the T206 sheets.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Ted,

The plate scratches weren't even brought up in this discussion. It's interesting
that you find them "laughable" since you probably haven't done any research
on them and it's likely you have ignored the threads so I will post a
brief demonstration of how they could be significant.

Pat

1st....That "laughable" comment was addressed to Luke......not you.

2nd....You are absolutely wrong, for I have read every one of your threads regarding the work you have done these past years on the plate scratches.
And, I respect and admire the time and effort you have devoted to this project.

Originally Posted by Pat R

So maybe you find the plate scratches laughable but I find them interesting
and a way to possibly find the layouts and size of a few of the T206 sheets.

The only disagreement that I have with your analysis is that your layout consists of 17 cards horizontally across a sheet.

This is inconsistent with what we know about American Lithographic's printing machinery for this type of job, and the standard size of cardboard sheets used in the 1909-1919 era.
A 19-inch track printing press....19-inch wide by 25-inch long sheets. I've researched this years ago. But don't take my word for these facts. Steve Birmingham has confirmed this.


Incidentally, I have done some ceramic tile work in my house and I fully appreciate what you are telling me about your trade.

Just to tell you where I'm coming from. For 30 years I was an Electronics design engineer at Bell Labs. My designs required lengthy statistical survey analysis prior to putting them
in operation. Sometimes I get "carried away" with something quite complex as the T206's can be. Whatever, I feel I've contributed knowledge to the T206 collectors on this forum.


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Ted,

I do recognize your contributions and passion for the set. It is my opinion some of the sheets were likely printed on a 19 inch press but I don't think all
of them were.

Patrick

[steve B]

I've become less convinced that the size was 25x19 for all the runs, different runs within a series, different brands etc. The layout Pat has for the more complete scratch is at least 17 wide, and probably wider.

I do think that some runs, especially for the smaller brands could have been done on a 19x25.
ALC would have used whatever was the most efficient based on the size of a particular order. The place I was at had a press that couldn't do anything larger than 81/2 x11. And a few times did smaller jobs.
There was also a 24", and 2 35s, and eventually a two color 35.
All the big presses could run smaller sheets, but we tried not to since it wasted a lot of paper.

By the numbers, there are some groups that divide nicely with 12, And others that fit 17 better.
The big group Pat has found I believe repeats after 17, leading me to think that one layout was perhaps as wide as 34.
If any group was going to be done on a large sheet it would have been Piedmont.


19x 25 is/was a standard paper size, but there were others.

Steve B