T206 Print Groups-A Quick Overview

[steve B]

As a bit of a heretic when it comes to the current print group thinking, I'll take a try at that.

The first and most important point is that for the most part, we all respect each others work and ideas. None of the current or future things we believe or know about the cards production would be possible without all those people laying the groundwork, and or adding information. That's not to say we don't occasionally have some serious disagreements, but that's the nature of things.

To me, the current print groups are sort of like a good intro to the complexity of the set. It's complex enough to be a bit of a challenge, but not so complex that most people can't grasp it.
One of my favorite catalogues in a different hobby is set up where for complex sets they show the basic set with the truly major varieties. Then there's a listing that lists different papers, gums etc along with a usually extensive listing of plate flaws that are collectible. And on occasion, they follow that up with a note that's polite but should read "if you're truly insane and have to know literally every small detail of this set you should buy this book by someone crazier"
That gives the collector a framework of how far to specialize.

In that way, the print groups are a solid foundation for further investigation. As well as a good framework for a collector to decide when to stop.

Where it breaks down is perhaps well into crazy land.
Within the current framework-
I would call the dozen or so 150 only cards print group 1.
And the rest of the 150s as either print group 2 or maybe 1A

Within the 150 group, there were at least three individual printings. As maybe the most obvious example, the Tinker hands on knees comes at least three different ways, each would have required a change to the original art, and new masters/transfers/etc.
Chicago partly visible behind Cubs
Chicago semi removed
Chicago not there at all

So that makes it at a minimum
Group 1 - 150 only, and potential sheetmates which may or may not be identifiable or have even existed at all.
Group 2- 150 but from the sheet that produced the Tinker with clear Chicago
Group 2A - 150 from sheets that produced tinker with partly removed Chicago
group 2B- 150 from sheets that produced correct cards with fewer design flaws.

And here's where there's a major branching
I consider 350s to be an entirely new set.
There are a few cards that show design changes between 150 and 350. Most are very minor. But also would have required new masters etc.

And within the 350's?
At least three more divisions.
If you want a "missing red" card, just find a Dygert without lipstick. They're common enough that I don't believe they're errors. They're readily available both with and without. And have a few cards with the same stuff going on but less obvious.

Hopefully the 350-460s and 460 only groups have fewer divisions, but I'm expecting them to be at least two each.


The other big branching spot is
were the same sheets used for all backs? Or did individual brands use their own sheet layouts and player selection?

UGH...... Since there's a couple team variations in the 350's that are only on PB, it can be pretty much assumed that at least partly brands may have had different sheet layouts and even different sheet sizes. That's both good and bad. On the bad side, it makes things 15x as complicated.
On the good side, it explains reasonably well why groups of 12 or groups of 17/34 both exist.

Confused yet?

Yes, for the vast majority of collectors, print groups as we currently explain them are just about right. And we have a few people who did some great work with access to lots of cards over several years to thank for that semi comfortable station we can stop or rest at before transferring to the crazy train lines.

[parkerj33]

Thanks Steve! I am always fascinated by this, so call me crazy, but I also think the healthy dialogue that occurs really helps to move our total understanding forward.

I think I am interpreting your response to mean that you believe that print groups help to explain things superficially, but when digging deeper it presents a too simplistic theory to account for all the actual evidence.

Edited to add: I don't yet understand the supposition that to replace a player/pose/team/artwork, they would have had to create an entire new sheet. I guess i envision a press made up a set of individual stones that get inked and pressed against the paper. so an array of 12x12, or 17x4, or whatever....but each of those individual "cells" in the array could be reomved and replaced indpendently.

so, magie is found...his stone removed, and replaced with magee stone, and resume cranking the presses.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by parkerj33

Thanks Pat, i forgot about this thread. Could you summarize where this is controversial or in conflict with scott Readers or ted z's work?

There are good points made in this thread but some people are confusing the print groups with print runs of that group. As Tim pointed out there were multiple printings of some backs within a print group. With some subjects you can get an idea of when they were printed by the backs they are found on.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

We believe they were added to the set during the last of the 150 Series printings. Their absence from the first printings of Piedmont and Sweet Caporal are supported by their not being printed with a Sovereign 150 back.

One popular misconception is that there were only single printings of backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. However this doesn't seem to be the case. Piedmont and Sweet Caporal cards are believed to have been printed multiple times during the different series and print groups productions.

The Lundgren (Chicago) cards late entry and early exit from the set accounts for this card being printed with so few backs.

Jennings (Portrait) was added late like the Lundgren (Chicago), but wasn't pulled early and can be found with more of the PG1 350 Series backs.

Lundgren Chicago and Jennings portrait were printed in Group 1.

Lundgren Chicago was printed with

Piedmont 150
EPDG
Piedmont 350

Jennings portrait was printed with

Piedmont 150
EPDG
Piedmont 350
Old Mill
Sweet Caporal 350/25 & 30
Sovereign 350

using Tim's chart you can get a general Idea when the printing started and stopped for those two subjects in the print group 1 printing.

0 T206Timeline - Copy.jpg

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

As a bit of a heretic when it comes to the current print group thinking, I'll take a try at that.

The first and most important point is that for the most part, we all respect each others work and ideas. None of the current or future things we believe or know about the cards production would be possible without all those people laying the groundwork, and or adding information. That's not to say we don't occasionally have some serious disagreements, but that's the nature of things.

To me, the current print groups are sort of like a good intro to the complexity of the set. It's complex enough to be a bit of a challenge, but not so complex that most people can't grasp it.
One of my favorite catalogues in a different hobby is set up where for complex sets they show the basic set with the truly major varieties. Then there's a listing that lists different papers, gums etc along with a usually extensive listing of plate flaws that are collectible. And on occasion, they follow that up with a note that's polite but should read "if you're truly insane and have to know literally every small detail of this set you should buy this book by someone crazier"
That gives the collector a framework of how far to specialize.

In that way, the print groups are a solid foundation for further investigation. As well as a good framework for a collector to decide when to stop.

Where it breaks down is perhaps well into crazy land.
Within the current framework-
I would call the dozen or so 150 only cards print group 1.
And the rest of the 150s as either print group 2 or maybe 1A

Within the 150 group, there were at least three individual printings. As maybe the most obvious example, the Tinker hands on knees comes at least three different ways, each would have required a change to the original art, and new masters/transfers/etc.
Chicago partly visible behind Cubs
Chicago semi removed
Chicago not there at all

So that makes it at a minimum
Group 1 - 150 only, and potential sheetmates which may or may not be identifiable or have even existed at all.
Group 2- 150 but from the sheet that produced the Tinker with clear Chicago
Group 2A - 150 from sheets that produced tinker with partly removed Chicago
group 2B- 150 from sheets that produced correct cards with fewer design flaws.

And here's where there's a major branching
I consider 350s to be an entirely new set.
There are a few cards that show design changes between 150 and 350. Most are very minor. But also would have required new masters etc.

And within the 350's?
At least three more divisions.
If you want a "missing red" card, just find a Dygert without lipstick. They're common enough that I don't believe they're errors. They're readily available both with and without. And have a few cards with the same stuff going on but less obvious.

Hopefully the 350-460s and 460 only groups have fewer divisions, but I'm expecting them to be at least two each.


The other big branching spot is
were the same sheets used for all backs? Or did individual brands use their own sheet layouts and player selection?

UGH...... Since there's a couple team variations in the 350's that are only on PB, it can be pretty much assumed that at least partly brands may have had different sheet layouts and even different sheet sizes. That's both good and bad. On the bad side, it makes things 15x as complicated.
On the good side, it explains reasonably well why groups of 12 or groups of 17/34 both exist.

Confused yet?

Yes, for the vast majority of collectors, print groups as we currently explain them are just about right. And we have a few people who did some great work with access to lots of cards over several years to thank for that semi comfortable station we can stop or rest at before transferring to the crazy train lines.

As Tim pointed out the 150 only subjects were printed with other print group 1 subjects they were just discontinued early for reasons we don't know.
We also now know from the plate scratch sheets that all twelve of them weren't on the same sheet and they were also on sheets with other subjects from print group 1.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I do not consider the 150 Only subjects to be a separate print group. I do believe they were print group 1 subjects. They were part of the original 150 subjects and printed like other print group 1 subjects. The only difference was they were discontinued early.

[Pat R]

You can get an idea of the different print runs within the print groups by the print defects found on some of the subjects in the same print group.

Here are the stats on a few print group 1 subjects that have front print defects that are found with 350 backs. None of these defects are found with a 150 series back.

I put the EPDG's in to show that they were printed with the 150 backs and not the 350 backs you can also get an idea of what backs were probably printed together in a print run.

Stats Clarke.jpg

Stats Dougherty.jpg

Stats Hinchman.jpg

Stats Keeler.jpg

Stats Killian.jpg

Stats Schlei.jpg

Stats Tannehill.jpg

I would guess that there were 2 or 3 print runs of the PD350's and 1 or 2 print runs for the rest of the 350 print group 1 backs. The stats show that the Old Mills and SC350/25's were most likely printed together but not with the Sov 350's.

[t206fix]

Pat - what are the print errors in the above groupings of cards?

thx

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by t206fix

Pat - what are the print errors in the above groupings of cards?

thx

They're not really errors Tony, they all have recurring print defects.

The Fred Clarke that I posted has a Red spot under the G on his uniform that is found on three different backs, here is an example of each back that it is found on.

PD350-2.jpg

SC350-30-1.jpg

Sov350-1.jpg

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

As Tim pointed out the 150 only subjects were printed with other print group 1 subjects they were just discontinued early for reasons we don't know.
We also now know from the plate scratch sheets that all twelve of them weren't on the same sheet and they were also on sheets with other subjects from print group 1.

My belief is that there will be differences between the non 150 only subjects on those sheets and the same subject from different 150 sheets.

I've done some work on stuff like that, but a lack of quality scans makes it difficult. At least there's a couple sources for excellent scans, LOC and the MET. Although the met won't give access to good scans for HOFers.

[steve B]

On most subjects it's 8 colors. Blue and light blue were usually paired, as were pink and red.

Here's a corner of Batch showing the blue and light blue. Also not how the light blue has a vertical spike on the corner on one but not the other. A small difference that most likely indicates two different positions on the same sheet but may indicate a very minor change to the master. Both are the same common back.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

My belief is that there will be differences between the non 150 only subjects on those sheets and the same subject from different 150 sheets.

I've done some work on stuff like that, but a lack of quality scans makes it difficult. At least there's a couple sources for excellent scans, LOC and the MET. Although the met won't give access to good scans for HOFers.

Steve, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying there are differences in the non 150 only subjects but there are no differences in the 150 only subjects? If so can you post examples of the differences that you're talking about.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Steve, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying there are differences in the non 150 only subjects but there are no differences in the 150 only subjects? If so can you post examples of the differences that you're talking about.

That's pretty close.
It's one thing to feel sure something exists, and another entirely to prove it exists.
A lack of excellent scans hinders the search, as I believe most differences will be very minor.

I know for sure that at least Tinker fielding had three different identifiable printings within the 150 series.
The couple with Chicago visible on the uniform
The ones with Chicago mostly removed
And ones where it's not there at all.

Conroy has differences that are divided by 150/350, And also comes at least 3 different ways. Putting three good scans near each other makes it like one of those "spot the differences " puzzles.


The upper one has partial stripes and no gray shading at the back of the cap
The middle one has strong stripes and gray shading
The last has no stripes and does have gray shading.

There are plenty of other differences

The lack of stripes is usually a 350 thing, but the middle one has both stripes and the shading of the no stripes.
Except for that shading I'd think the middle one was earliest, as the proof has solid lines between the head/back and the background.

I did a couple experiments at organizing the visuals for a couple things and for T206 I'm going to have to learn database stuff.
Even finding good scans is slow going, since the places like LOC don't organize their cards the way any of us would, making a search a bit painful.