Were Group 1 Subjects Printed With EPDG Before PD 350 ?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

Those are really interesting. Especially the last two.

Usually a ring shaped defect is a fisheye, but it's usually a dark center with a light ring around it. The last two, especially the larger scan are like that, but the others are either the solid spot or the dark ring.

I suspect what's there is a drop of one of the platemaking chemicals that got there while the plate was being laid out. So the full spots are the earliest ones, the dark ring ones printed later after the original spot had a chance to wear, and the last two with light colored rings are actually an attempt at correcting the dark ring by stoning it off the plate. Basically erasing it with a limestone stick. It could also be plate damage and/or a nailhead sticking up from the impression cylinder.

Steve B

Because of the recent discussions I took another look at these. I have seen
where it was speculated that the printing of the group 1 (150/350) EPDG
subjects might have begun during the 150 series printing. If it could be
established (highlighted in red) that this is the reason for the differences in the dark spot on
the sleeve the two different variations in the EPDG examples could prove that
they were.

Steve,
If you had high resolution scans of two or all three different degrees of that
spot could you tell if they were the result of plate wear ?


On a comparative note the Group 2 (350) only Tolstoi's have a similar
pattern when you look at the numbers.

Most of the group 2 350 only subjects are tough and some of them are
extremely tough with a Tolstoi back. There are 314 different subjects
that are considered to be possible with the Tolstoi back. There are 65
subjects that are unconfirmed and all of them are print group 2 subjects.
One explanation for this could be that the printing of the Tolstoi backs
didn't start until later in the print group 2 printing.

I just started researching a group of three print group 2 subjects and
when I get the numbers together I will post them here.


Here are the different examples so far. The fifth one from
the left and the first one on the bottom left are the EPDG's
the rest are all PD150's.

Owen Group.jpg

also all of them have this spot that is missing Yellow.
Owenper20Darkper20Spotper20Onper20Sleeve - Copy.jpg

[steve B]

High res scans would tell me a lot.
Sometimes wear is hard to tell because of how variable the inking levels were. I could probably tell if the last version was an attempted repair.

Someday I'll have to draw some pics explaining wear and inking to show how similar they can be. (And impression pressure, and the wetting of the stone/plate and .......

Steve B

[Pat R]

I only have the full version but here's one that is either the very beginning or
after it was fixed if it was.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-T206-Fr...IAAOSwH4NZgqXQ

And another full version
http://www.ebay.com/itm/T206-Frank-O...UAAOSwfVpYujDz

[steve B]

I'm almost certain that's not a repair. The screening is far too even and matches up perfectly.

Repair on the plate would be by stoning off the big spot, then redrawing the dots either by hand, or by laying down another piece of transfer. It's incredibly hard to do that and get it looking exactly right.

As an aside, the one from Deans has a transfer laydown problem on the frame at the upper left.

The transfers were made by printing with very thick tarlike ink onto basically tissue paper, then laying that on the stone in the right spot with some solvent. When it was good and stuck down water was used to remove the tissue. Some times the tissue would tear, and that is probably the cause.

Depending on how common the spot is, it could have been on the master stone, either early and later fixed by remaking the master, or more likely later when a bit of something got on the stone

Comparing the cards on Ebay, there are a couple 350's with decent scans
http://www.ebay.com/itm/T206-Owen-/3...QAAOSwDrlZfjUb

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-T206-Fr...EAAOSw9fNZgleV

Both are screened differently from all the 150's I looked at, it's more noticeable in the face.

A few things I haven't quite figured out on it.
The shape is interesting, being an irregular octagon. That's odd as I can't think of a way that shape was created. It's too uneven to be a nut or bolt head, and probably too uneven to be from a bit of scrap paper from an octagonal hole punch.
There's also a missing halftone dot just under the lower left of the bog dot. That could be missing, or not picked up because of whatever caused the spot, or just another bit that didn't transfer properly.

Steve B

[Pat R]

I finally did a little more research on some of the print flaws/defects
that I have been tracking and they have me leaning more towards the
EPDG printing for the 150/350 series starting at the tail end of the
150 series and I'm also starting to wonder if there were any leftover
150 fronts used for the 350 series.

I know it would be a small % of leftovers but I haven't found any
of these Flaws/defects (0-657) on a 350 back.

These are all card target sales that were listed under the specific
back and I didn't try to track re-sales on the larger number sales
like the PD150's which on average are probably around 15%.


Cicotte.jpg
PD150-5.jpgSC150-25.jpg
Sov150-2.jpg

Davis.jpg
img392.jpgDaves AMEP SC 150-649 - Copy - Copy.jpg
003 Davis Sov 150-1.jpg

Gibson.jpg
PD 150-1.jpgSC 150-30-2.jpg

Konetchy.jpg
PD150-2.jpgSC150-30-1.jpg

[Pat R]

Here are a few more

Lajoie.jpg
SC150-30-1.jpgSC150-649-1.jpg
PD150-2.jpgHindu.jpg

McGraw.jpg
PD 150-2.jpgPD 150-3.jpg

Owen.jpg
PD 150-12.jpgEPDG-2.jpg

[Pat R]

..
Pastorius.jpg
PD150-1.jpgSC150-30-1.jpg
SC150-649-1.jpg

Tenney.jpg
PD150-9.jpgSC150-30-2.jpg

[Thromdog]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I finally did a little more research on some of the print flaws/defects
that I have been tracking and they have me leaning more towards the
EPDG printing for the 150/350 series starting at the tail end of the
150 series and I'm also starting to wonder if there were any leftover
150 fronts used for the 350 series.

Awesome research as always.....

So based on your results, when you say that you are leaning towards EPDG's printed early 350/late 150, is that based on the Owens alone? I ask because in the samples you have referenced, the Owens is the only flaw that is shared on an EPDG example.

Just wanting to clarify.

Thanks

[greco827]

It may have been in your count, as I purchased it off eBay in the last month, but I have a Pastorius PD350, which does not have the - next to the B on his cap.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Thromdog

Awesome research as always.....

So based on your results, when you say that you are leaning towards EPDG's printed early 350/late 150, is that based on the Owens alone? I ask because in the samples you have referenced, the Owens is the only flaw that is shared on an EPDG example.

Just wanting to clarify.

Thanks

Hi Jeff,

With the print flaws it's kind of based on just the Owen. Of the flaws I
posted Davis, Tenney and McGraw are not confirmed EPDG's and Konetchy
and Pastorius are confirmed but questionable. Both of the EPDG flaws are
found on Owen but it's still 2-29 EPDG's so if some of the 350's were
printed using front plates from the 150 series I would expect at least a
few examples out of the 657 from 350 series with some of these flaws.

The other thing as Luke pointed out is on average the close
to equal numbers of EPDG to PD 350 for the elite 11. I can't see why they
would pull them from the Piedmont 350 printing but not the EPDG so to
me the most logical reason for them being close in numbers is the EPDG
printing started during end of the 150 series and they were pulled around
the same time at the beginning of the 350 series printing and the Owen
with the same flaw indicates the 150 plates were used for at least some
of the EPDG's.