T220 Silver - Uncut Edition

[Pat R]

Is it fair to assume the sheet was at minimum 34-36 inches wide?

[G1911]

We have:

3 bottom panels

3 top panels (one is clearly a corner).

3 panels x 4 cards x 2.5 inches = 30 inches, without the white margins.

Assuming all T220-1's are one sheet, which is not for sure yet, it would have to be about 34-36 inches at minimum.


For scorekeeping, we also have:
4 right panels (counting Jordan again, since he is obviously the top right corner)

0 left panels

9 panels that do not show clear evidence of being an edge, but as they are handcut (albeit pretty cleanly) some may have had the white frame cut off and thus cannot just be assumed to be interior panels.



A 5x5 layout of panels would be 16 edge panels, 9 interior panels, counting in my head. A different layout would probably be a sheet that either 1) didn't have all 25 cards or be 2) be very large.


I'm back home from vacation on Saturday to try and piece more together of the 13 I have access too to see what connects. Jackson and Lavigne vertically connect, Edwards and McGovern do horizontally.

[Pat R]

Thanks Greg. There is some information from that timeframe on possible sheet sizes used.

Full Obak sheet 31 x 23 1/2

18 card strip E91A approximately 27 inches

T206 plate scratches indicate a 34-36 inch sheet

[G1911]

I'm not up to speed on the plate scratches. I've seen the Obak and AC setups. I don't think they are the same printer, but I don't think that printer is known. I may be a little behind more recent discoveries though.

If we come up with a sheet about this wide, it would gives us 3 panels in a row, making it unlikely these are all from one sheet.

Before this find, my suspicion was multiple size sheets were used, and layouts were different for small format and large format cards. Large format cards seem to repeat top to bottom, and also horizontally. Small format cards don't seem to have been printed in blocks, but with a card repeating only vertically.

It's interesting we have only one corner piece and no left panels. I suspect either the sheet is huge, some of the interior-looking panels are trimmed to cut the white border, and/or The E229's fit into the same, large sheet.

I hope what we may learn from this is helpful to other sets in the ATC/AL partnership. I have some uncut T25 strips as well showing different cards adjacent to each other in a large format, different from T220-1 and T218-3.

[Pat R]

Yeah I was just pointing out the ability and possibility of them being printed on a large sheet.

I've seen some mention that the Obaks were printed by Schmidt Lithograph and it was mentioned in post #9 in this older thread that they used some similar lithograph presses as American Lithograph.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...773#post842773


There's also some information on the sizes of some of the presses used by ALC in this thread

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125899

[G1911]

I'm not sure how the press sizes a decade prior will relate to the sheets, and produces quite a range of possibilities there.

Is there a source or evidence for Schmidt printing T212? the post here says they "used similar presses", and Obak is mentioned only once in passing without relation to Schmidt using my fancy command F. I presume the printer of T212 was the printer of T224/T229 based on the stylistic resemblances.


I can add T29 to the list of probably block-subject printed sets from miscuts. T25 is not in block format, T29, T218-3 are, most don't have cards cut so bad we can tell, or uncut material. 25 subjects on a sheet makes a lot of sense. If it was this way, I've seen no evidence of double printing to compensate for the Donovan and Corbett getting yanked from their sheet(s) very, very early on.


On a related printing note, does anyone know what happened to the second ledger that surfaced? Lelands sold it for $8k a couple years ago, it had information on T220 among other sets, but only a small sampling was shown in the listing (https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=976570). There may be some clues in here if its owner is willing to divulge. Much of the evidence that would help piece things together appears to be silo'd; there seems much more out there and extant than is talked about openly.

[Pat R]

I have no idea who printed the Obacks I just said it was mentioned that Schmidt did.

Originally Posted by tedzan

We have gone thru this numerous times in past threads over the years.

You cannot compare Schmidt Lithographic's (San Francisco) printing methods and machinery used to produce the OBAK's with
American Lithographic's (NYC) printing methods & machinery that produced the T206's, T205's, T209's, T210's, T211's, T213's,
T214's and T215's.

Where is your evidence that supports you making this claim ?

Furthermore, mathematically speaking, tell us how your "17" (or whatever) format maps into the following T206 structures ? ?


150 Series
-------------
150-only group = 12 subjects
150/350 series = 144 subjects

350-only series = 204 subjects
------------------

350/460 series = 60 subjects....plus the 6 super-prints (which were usually Double-Printed)
------------------

460-only series
------------------
Exclusive 12 group = 12 subjects
Subjects printed only with 460 type backs = 36

Southern Lgrs. = 48 subjects
-----------------



Hey guys............
It does not require Rocket Science to see that the common denominator in all these Series structures is a factor of 12.



TED Z
.

Good luck with your panels.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm not sure how the press sizes a decade prior will relate to the sheets, and produces quite a range of possibilities there.

Is there a source or evidence for Schmidt printing T212? the post here says they "used similar presses", and Obak is mentioned only once in passing without relation to Schmidt using my fancy command F. I presume the printer of T212 was the printer of T224/T229 based on the stylistic resemblances.


I can add T29 to the list of probably block-subject printed sets from miscuts. T25 is not in block format, T29, T218-3 are, most don't have cards cut so bad we can tell, or uncut material. 25 subjects on a sheet makes a lot of sense. If it was this way, I've seen no evidence of double printing to compensate for the Donovan and Corbett getting yanked from their sheet(s) very, very early on.


On a related printing note, does anyone know what happened to the second ledger that surfaced? Lelands sold it for $8k a couple years ago, it had information on T220 among other sets, but only a small sampling was shown in the listing (https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=976570). There may be some clues in here if its owner is willing to divulge. Much of the evidence that would help piece things together appears to be silo'd; there seems much more out there and extant than is talked about openly.

Your link doesn't work maybe this one will

https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=97657


This book indicates that the Old Masters Litho Corporation printed some of the T220's and T225's.