New theory why American Beauty cards are narrower than other T206's

[tedzan]

Jantz

13 divides into 78 very evenly......so, either four AB 460 double-prints, or possibly 4 new AB 460's might still be
found.....or, a combination of both.

Double-prints are very possible, since Crandall, Devore, Ford and McGraw are seen more than the other AB 460's.


TED Z

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by tedzan

13 divides into 78 very evenly......so, either four AB 460 double-prints, or possibly 4 new AB 460's might still be
found.....or, a combination of both.

Ted

I noted this also when I was running the numbers. Hopefully more members will have something to add to this thread since this is a subject I enjoy discussing. Maybe someday soon we can discuss the board's thoughts on the length of a T206 sheet. I don't recall, though I could be wrong, seeing it discussed before.

Jantz

[rebelsart]

I am pretty sure that the American Lithograph Company printed the T212 Obak cards as well as the T206 White border cards.
Judging from this "partial" T212 Obak sheet it seems as though 19 cards across is the correct number.


Art

[tedzan]

Art M

Are you sure that the Obak's were printed by American Litho. in New York City ?

I thought they were printed in California ?

Regards,

TED Z

[Jantz]

Art,

Very interesting!

Please keep in mind that you yourself referred to this as a "partial" sheet.

The scan you have presented is in a horizontal position and the card images are vertical, but what if the sheets were printed in a vertical fashion making the card images horizontal. Then, of course, the number 19 would be the sheet length and the width would still be unknown to us. I guess as collectors we could think that sheets were printed with the card images in the correct viewng position. Please keep in mind that this is one set that I know nothing about and any information from you or any other board member would be appreciated.

I believe though that the S74 Silks series may hold some evidence to the T206 AB theory. In Lew Lipset's Encyclopedia, he mentions two complete sheets known to exist. One sheet had the card dimensions of 12 rows x 12 columns or 144 silks total. The other sheet displayed 156 silks total. The dimensions were 13 rows x 12 columns. Of course, this is going under the assumption that the ALC printed the silks. If they did, then it could be quite possible for AB T206s to have been printed on a larger sheet size than the regular sheet size used for the other T206 brands.

Jantz

[teetwoohsix]

I think the significance of the T212 partial sheet (not sure what makes it partial though),is the T212's were within the same size parameter as the T206.
One thing I guess I'm confused about is:We understand,thanks to TedZ & many others research,that T206 cards were printed by the ALC and sent by rail to the various Factories for distribution.

When I looked up the T212 cards in Lew's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards Vol.3,,,,it says (regarding T212 Obak's):
"All were printed by the same factory in the 1st District of California as the back of any card will indicate."

So,with T206 cards,they were only printed by the ALC and shipped to their factory destinations-and were not printed at the factories themselves,,,,,,,,but with the T212's they were printed at the factory,and not elsewhere?I am confused.

Sorry,I didn't mean to derail the thread.I hope everyone can figure out why the AB cards are narrower than the other T206 cards.
There sure are a lot of mysteries behind these tobacco cards!!!
Sincerely,Clayton

[tedzan]

OK guys...... FYI regarding the OBAK cards....and then hopefully, we can get back on the main track here talking
about T206 American Beauty cards.

The OBAK (T212) cards were printed in San Francisco at the Schmidt Lithography Co. Judging from the 76-card
uncut sheet shown in Post #8, Schmidt Lithography used a 30-inch wide press track to print 19 cards across the
sheet. This press track was considerably wider than American Litho's 18-inch press track used for the T206's.
For your edification regarding Schmidt Litho....check-out this link......
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/schmidt.html


Judson....thanks for the kind words and regarding your......" Frank W.'s point is well taken, but if the "stones" were
individual to the player images and assembled for each sheet, then that, to me, would be conclusive. If there were
miscut cards of the same player with different players to the left or right, that would be substantial proof that the
stones were secured individually onto the printing plates. "

Lithography is an art, and as Frank says the images are initially created on stones ("lithos"..Greek). Now, my under-
standing of this process is....then the image is transferred to metallic plates. So, adding a 13th image (or 26th, or
39th, etc., etc. onto a printing plate is no big deal.

Gee, I don't appear to be invoking any really thought-provoking stuff here. Let's do some serious thinking and arrive
at some plausible explanation for this series of "skinny" cards.


T-Rex TED

[Bridwell]

From my collection, here's a thinner pack with a 1910 tax stamp, pictured next to a wider pack with a 1905 date. One simple theory is that the thinner American Beauty cards were designed with the possibility of being inserted into these thinner packs. Whether they ever were is debatable.

Ron R

[teetwoohsix]

Wow Ron,when comparing the width of the AB460 and the width of the thinner AB pack,you can see it would fit in the pack perfectly!!Thanks for posting this picture along with the ruler at the bottom.Now we see where the old theory actually holds some weight...........

Sincerely,Clayton

[tedzan]

Here is the standard size 10-cigarette pack that all the T-brands during the 1909-1911 timefrane
of the T206 issue. This pack of mine was issued in the 1908-1910 timeframe.






TED Z

[judsonhamlin]

Thanks Ted!
When I read through your threads, I'm always been impressed by the time and effort you've been able to put in. The 74 number, then, came across as odd. I like the idea of 13 card sheets for AB cards. And, it would not surprise me at all if a couple of the 460's were double printed. With regard to the other two issues, the numbers make a great deal more sense if we think in terms of a 13 card sheet.
Frank W.'s point is well taken, but if the "stones" were individual to the player images and assembled for each sheet, then that, to me, would be conclusive. If there were miscut cards of the same player with different players to the left or right, that would be substantial proof that the stones were secured individually onto the printing plates (not sure of my terms here).
Great job (again).