![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pat
Here is are the Tom Jones cards from my sets.. The PIEDMONT 350 has the "white mark", obviously the other two cards do not. My SWEET CAP, Factory #30 set is in the safety deposit box; therefore, I cannot at this time display its Tom Jones card. ![]() ![]() TED Z T206 Reference . |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Interesting Jones that's the first PD350 that I've seen that shares the same flaw as a PD150 or EPDG. Based on the research I've done on all of the flaws this is an educated guess on a possible timeline of the EPDG and Old Mill's in relation to the PD150 and 350's from print group 1 There is evidence that the PD150's were printed in 3 or 4 different stages and I used four on this chart. EPDG and Old Mill Chart.jpg |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Hey Pat,
Here are a few Jones Piedmont 350's.... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Be well Brian |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Pat and Ted, are you sure that Jones P350 actually has the white marks? There is a lot of damage in the area and if you look at the back of the card, you can see that something punched completely through the card, resulting in at least some paper loss. I can't tell for sure if those spots are paper loss or a print mark. We would need a high res scan to make a determination I think.
__________________
ThatT206Life.com |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I did see the Damage in that area on the front and back and I think the one closest to his hat and part of another one is definitely from the damage but it does look like the rest are in the same spot as the print defects on the other Jones examples but as you say I would need bigger scans to be sure. I think the areas marked in black are from the damage and the marks circled in red are the matching print defects. The mark that's circled in yellow is a different print defect or more damage. Ted's Jones.jpg Last edited by Pat R; 09-10-2018 at 05:28 PM. Reason: added scan of Ted's Jones |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Nice work. I think I see it too.
__________________
ThatT206Life.com |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
ones I've seen. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think Ted's PD350 Jones is important piece of the puzzle.
It eliminates the only explanation I can think of that the EPDG's weren't printed before PD350's that the PD350's were printed using different plates than the PD150 and EPDG's. but with the same mark on a PD150,PD350 and EPDG we can rule that out. So a flaw would be found on a slightly smaller % PD350 vs EPDG for the elite eleven and would be very low % for a non elite eleven subject. It also provides what I think is a pretty solid theory for the mystery in the scarcity of the elite eleven with PD350 backs. Ted's Jones is the first PD350 print flaw I've seen on any 350 back the theory I have is that ALC used pre-printed 150 sheets while they were re-doing the plates for the 350 backs. This theory is supported by the numbers I have for the print flaws. If the EPDG printing began at the tail end of the PD150 the printing flaws would be found at a higher % on EPDG vs PD150 which they are. They would also be found at a slightly higher % EPDG vs PD350 with the elite eleven and a very low % for the non elite eleven subjects. If they did use pre-printed sheets and they omitted the elite eleven on the redone 350 sheets whether it was intentional or accidental it would account for the scarcity of the elite eleven PD350's and they would be a little less scarce with EPDG's because some of them would have come from the tail end PD150 printing. Bill Graham a print group subject 2 has a flaw similar to Jones and the EPDG vs PD350 numbers are what I would expect if the EPDG's were printed after or around the same time as the PD350's. The numbers I have on the Graham flaw are PD350 18 out of 260 with the flaw EPDG 2 out of 18 with the flaw Graham EPDG-1.jpg Graham PD350-18-260 EPDG 2-18.jpg Last edited by Pat R; 09-11-2018 at 04:01 PM. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Pat,
Once again, some unreal work. I really think to hit the nail on the head with your most recent theory. You beat me to a "photoshop" of the P350 Jones. At first I thought it was paper damage, but the "dots" do match up. Especially the top one, which has same vertical and horizontal placement ..... zxzjones1c2.jpg Great, Scott ![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have nothing to add except to express my awe and delight in all of your dedication and knowledge. I’ll resume lurking again
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: group of 6 EPDG commons | trobba | T206 cards B/S/T | 0 | 10-22-2014 10:00 AM |
Evidence of trimming? | bobbvc | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 04-05-2014 09:44 PM |
Evidence of E90-1 being printed before E102 | CaramelMan | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 08-24-2013 05:40 PM |
The Evidence as Promised | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 05-01-2008 07:02 PM |
Were T206's printed on sheets of 48 Subjects ? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 64 | 04-27-2007 08:50 AM |