Were PIEDMONT 460 factory #42 & UZIT backs printed simultaneously ?

[tedzan]

rob d

Your recurring snide remarks in my threads have worn out. Why don't you try to contribute some meaningful
inputs to the subject matter. Rather than your subtle mean-spirited comments.

GROW UP.....WILL YOU !

You act as if you are still stuck in your teenage years.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by tedzan

rob d

Your recurring snide remarks in my threads have worn out. Why don't you try to contribute some meaningful
inputs to the subject matter. Rather than your subtle mean-spirited comments.

GROW UP.....WILL YOU !

You act as if you are still stuck in your teenage years.

Sure, Ted. Lead the way.

[cfc1909]

Tim

I agree with the lighter Uzit just having less ink applied and think the Sweet Caporal comparison shows very good evidence and backs up your thoughts.

I also think if the P42 and Uzit were printed "simultaneously" the fronts would match.

[tedzan]

You are misconstrueing the intent of this thread. It is standard printer's practice to do press runs of several jobs with a given color of ink.

Different sheets of pre-printed fronts would be run thru the press to print the backs whose color was the same....in this situation, BLUE.

Incidently, the PIEDMONT 460/42 and UZIT cards have 28 fronts in common from the 350/460 series.

And, 8 fronts in common from the 460-only series (which to date there are only 12 subjects known with the PIEDMONT 460/42 back).


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Incidently, the PIEDMONT 460/42 and UZIT cards have 28 fronts in common from the 350/460 series.

And, 8 fronts in common from the 460-only series (which to date there are only 12 subjects known with the PIEDMONT 460/42 back).

TED Z

While it is true some of fronts are shared by both Piedmont 42 and Uzit, not enough are to show concurrent printings. However there are enough that don't match to show they were not concurrent printings.

Breaking these two groups into subsets is not the proper way to analyze how these two backs were printed and can only lead to false conclusions. It's interesting to think about 350/460 and 460 separately but it isn't how the cards were being printed at that time.

I know it's just my opinion but I haven't seen anything to date that would lead me to believe there are two different shades of blue Uzits.

[wonkaticket]

First off I’m not going to speculate on what standard printers practice was 100+ years ago because that is all it will be at the end of the day, speculation.

I will say from experience as an owner of a company that specializes in premium giveaways and retail products. There will always be manufacturing variances, the reasons behind such variances are many but often carry a common reason as to why. Most of the time it’s the most obvious reason FWIW.

From my experience collecting T206’s for 25+ years I can say that these cards have all sorts of little nuances that go missed. Many of which simply boil down to saturation of ink applied or missed ink all together.




There are dozens of little goofy things in this set that advanced collectors have privately chased for years under wraps to keep folks from looking for them to drive them up. Seriously it’s the magicians guild god help you if you are told something and tell someone else about that missing dot card…no kidding.

Example the cards below can be found with all sorts of degrees of clouds, glove colors, redness in cheeks etc. i.e. Ritchey/Doves.




Most all of them are simply cosmetic subtle changes that only by handling many of one card would you be aware of or notice. Some to most all have no real value either. Then there are those true cards with real visible striking differences which command premiums due to rarity.




There are also tons of faded backs I have a few Tolstoi’s in which the ink has been so lightly applied they look grey or brown…they are of course black.

IMO “True” color differences in backs are really stand out and not too subtle and also carry some common attributes in terms of series or subjects. A common rule of thumb is if you have to ask it’s most likely a faded version of its normal counterpart.

This from a guy who likes differences in backs and actively collects such anomalies and or variations; I see no differences in the Uzit brand.

I have been fortunate to handle and see quite a few from other collectors collections as well as own examples and I just don’t see it. In fact I have a few Uzits on hand now from a board member and like Tim posted above with the SC 649 there can be subtle differences but no night and day print difference.

Cheers,

John

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

While it is true some of fronts are shared by both Piedmont 42 and Uzit, not enough are to show concurrent printings. However there are enough that don't match to show they were not concurrent printings.

Breaking these two groups into subsets is not the proper way to analyze how these two backs were printed and can only lead to false conclusions. It's interesting to think about 350/460 and 460 separately but it isn't how the cards were being printed at that time.

Tim

I fully understand that the subjects in the 350/460 series and the 460-only series were not distinct entities back in 1911 when American Litho. was printing these cards.
Consider this, I have identified 28 subjects from what we now refer to as the "350/460 series".....and, 8 subjects from the "460-only series".....that are common to both
the P460/42 and UZIT brands. And, there is a good likelihood that these 36 subjects may have been on one 36-card sheet.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I know it's just my opinion but I haven't seen anything to date that would lead me to believe there are two different shades of blue Uzits.

I just bumped up my current "UZIT" thread. Observe the backs of my Herzog and Schaefer cards. Then tell me that there is not a stark difference in their blue colors ?

DITTO goes for Jim B's Willis vs Mike S's Mullin.

I have seen enough of these cards in my 30+ years of collecting T206's, that I can say with certainty that there is a noticeable difference in the blue coloring of some
UZIT's vs other UZIT's.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

And, there is a good likelihood that these 36 subjects may have been on one 36-card sheet.

With a high degree of certainty I can say that is likely not true.

Originally Posted by tedzan

I just bumped up my current "UZIT" thread. Observe the backs of my Herzog and Schaefer cards. Then tell me that there is not a stark difference in their blue colors ?

There is no stark difference in the blue inks between the Herzog back and Schaefer, but simply a difference in the amount of ink applied.

Originally Posted by tedzan

I have seen enough of these cards in my 30+ years of collecting T206's, that I can say with certainty that there is a noticeable difference in the blue coloring of some UZIT's vs other UZIT's.

I readily admit I haven't been collecting T206's for 30 years but I can say with certainty as well that there is a noticeable difference in the backs of some Uzits but it's not due to a change in the ink color.

I'm not trying to be contrarian but just like sharing what I know or think about the set with people that are open to discussing it. By all means you are free to have your opinion in spite of what I've presented. Happy collecting.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I just bumped up my current "UZIT" thread. Observe the backs of my Herzog and Schaefer cards. Then tell me that there is not a stark difference in their blue colors ? TED Z

There is not a major difference just saturation differences which can be found on almost all brands of backs from EPDG to AB. I see no new variation of Uzit here.

John