Piedmont 150 plate scratch(es) progress

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B;2215272[[B

B]]It's also possible the short scratch is duplicated columns. The left end seems to line up pretty well with the right end of the longer one.
[/B]
Now wouldn't that complicate things. [/B]

I have to say I'm very happy how things have worked out. Pat has done the bulk of the heavy lifting. At one point I thought I'd gotten pretty far, with my little jigsaw puzzles where I drew in the scratches and lined them up.
Then Pat sent me scans of something like double the amount I'd found to that point. That he's included stuff where a back flaw and front flaw match consistently is a big bonus.

I'm not sure we'll ever get to knowing the size of any sheet, but having things taken so far is cause for hope.

In stamps, it's called "plating" where through study we can know exactly where on what sheet a stamp was. It usually takes decades to really get it down, and even the heavily studied ones still have new discoveries made nearly 100 years after the first published results. And that's with the sheet size being known
To have an approximate size and layout without knowing the sheet size is some amazing work. Probably one of the best I've seen in any of my hobbies.

You have mentioned this before Steve, I don't think it does but I could be wrong. When you have time to work on it let me know and I will send you large scans of all the scratches from that sheet.

I have a card coming that I thought would be here today that could tell us the absolute minimum size of sheet 2 A/B if my thinking is correct.

[Brian Weisner]

Hey Pat,
I was scanning some cards last night and noticed a possible scratch mark…





Let me know what you think.

Be well Brian

[Pat R]

Hey Brian,

I have seen a few PD350's with partial scratches like that but nothing like the 150's. I haven't found enough to even put a pair of subjects together with
any of the 350 marks.

[Pat R]

Okay the card I was waiting for came today and it refers to sheet #2
[IMG][/IMG] [IMG][/IMG]


8 years ago Steve A posted in this thread about a Doc White with an upside down back

Originally Posted by steve_a

Below is (not mine) an upside down Doc White. Since it is upside down the back should be from a column equal columns from the center. For instance, given columns ABCD a typical A back would be a D when upside down. If we can match this back to a right-side-up player we have another data point on sheet width. If both players can be linked by a multi-column horizontal scratch that terminates in a side crop then I think algebra would give us the sheet width. Not a lot to work with here but I think there is scratch between "u" in Subjects and "Pi" in Piedmont. Add in a few stray distinctive marks and someone might recognize it.

[IMG][/IMG]

Besides the partial scratch mark on the main back there was another print mark on the second back

Originally Posted by Pat R

Erick, I think Steve is referring to the short mark I circled in red but you
had it in hand and got a better look at it than what can be seen in the
small scans.
When you originally posted scans of this card I was looking at trying to
find a PD 150 subject with the mark I circled in black, it looks like it's
some kind of print mark.

[IMG][/IMG]

Steve eventually found a Doyle that matched the main upside down Doc White back

Originally Posted by steve_a

I can confirm that upside down White & Doyle have matching backs. It might not be super clear in the scans but I have both in hand and they match. This means that these two cards are in opposite positions, equal rows and columns from the center, sides, top/bottom, horizontal axis, etc. If we can link either of these two to a center/side/each-other via scratch we could make a lot of progress quickly. I look forward to seeing any scratches, neighbors, two-namers, etc that you have. Another piece in the sheet-size puzzle...

[IMG][/IMG]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Nice work Steve,

Doyle is on one of the sheets that has two different subjects with identical scratches indicating the back plates were used on two different fronts.

Stone is a match for Doyle and I think the sheet with Stone on it would
have been the one that White was on because Doyle is a 150 only subject
and White isn't, so we should eventually find a Stone with the same partial
scratch that Doyle and the upside down White have.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]


http://photos.imageevent.com/patrick...et%20C-D_1.jpg

I eventually found a Doyle with the same mark as the partial second back on Doc White
[QUOTE=Pat R;1785697]Almost three years ago Steve pointed out in this thread that the upside
down back of White matched up with a Doyle back.

At the time I searched and couldn't find a Doyle or Stone (Doyle and
Stone share the same position on a plate scratch sheet) that had a print
flaw that is on the smaller portion of the second back on the upside down
White.

This Doyle that sold on ebay recently has that mark.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]
So far Doc White hasn't been found with a plate scratch but if
one is eventually found it should allow us to figure out the exact
size of this plate scratch sheet based off the upside down White.

After several years of searching I finally found a George Stone with this mark
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]


It would be great to find a Doc White with a plate scratch then we would know for sure the exact number of horizontal subjects on this sheet but I think we can now say it's pretty likely that it's a minimum of 20 subjects wide.

The plate scratches show that this back plate was used for two front sheets, every position has two subjects with the same scratch

[/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

There are only two positions with an undiscovered scratch, the matching scratches for Reulbach and G. Brown If Doc white is the missing scratch for Reulbach that would mean the sheet was 20 subjects wide
[IMG][/IMG]

If he is the missing scratch for George Brown the sheet would be 22 subjects wide.
[IMG][/IMG]

It's also possible that like some of the plate scratch sheets the scratch on this one didn't go all the way across the sheet and Doc White is in another position which would make the sheet larger than 22 subjects wide.