Simulated T206 sheets....check them out....plus, new find of 350/460 series DRUM card

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Let me posit an alternative to the Sovereign-checklisted-first-but-printed-third theory proposed by T206 Resource. I am not suggesting it happened this way; only showing that there are plausible alternatives.

In early 1909, ALC developed an "original" checklist having 155 subjects [the 150 who would eventually be printed with Sovereign plus Wagner (Pittsburg), Plank, Lundgren (Chicago), Crawford (Throwing) and Jennings (Portrait)]. The plan was to commence printing of these 155 subjects first with Piedmont, then Sweet Caporal and finally Sovereign, in that order. The Piedmont brand was chosen to go "online" first due to its popularity, followed by the slightly less popular Sweet Caporal and the far less popular Sovereign. Naturally, there would be overlap in the printing process. That is to say, printing with Piedmont would continue after printing with Sweet Caporal and even Sovereign started--there being a greater demand for Piedmont cigarettes.

The employee who created the checklist took it to the design folks, who started dutifully preparing the card fronts and backs, and also the marketing folks who said, "Let's just call it '150 subjects.' 155 is too exacting." (They would later use the same "rounding down" logic to reach "350" and "460" subjects, respectively).

By spring, the printer had made preparations to start printing the 155 subjects on several different sheets, starting with Piedmont, while the marketing folks placed ads for "Base Ball Subjects in Packs of Piedmont, Sweet Caporal and Sovereign Cigarettes" in Sporting Life magazine, illustrating several of the checklisted subjects--including Wagner (Pittsburg).

As the summer wore on, ALC management noticed that several star players--Wagner, Plank, Crawford and Jennings--had not returned their written authorizations. Word was out that Wagner objected to a lack of compensation and was going to get his lawyer involved. Lundgren, who had been demoted to the minors after just two early season appearances, never got his authorization request and it made no sense to send him one now.

The printer was notified to take their five subjects out of production. At that point, the sheets containing Crawford (Throwing), Jennings (Portrait) and Lundgren (Chicago) had already undergone a complete print run with Piedmont 150. The sheet having Crawford (Throwing) had also experienced substantial printing with Sweet Caporal 150. And a few early production sheets containing Wagner (Pittsburg) and Plank with Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150 had left the factory too. Moreover, since the cards were being so well received by the public, a few "test" sheets containing Plank had even been printed with Sweet Caporal 350. However, the Sovereign 150 print run had not yet started.

Fortunately, the written authorizations of Crawford and Jennings arrived in the fall--just in time for the 350 series print run--and their subjects were returned to production. But the written authorizations of Wagner and Plank would never arrive.

(Okay--this doesn't explain Lundgren Piedmont 350 or EPDG, but I really don't want to rewrite that part of the story!)

Furthermore, the fact that the MAGIE error exists only with the PIEDMONT 150 back unquestionably proves to us that PIEDMONT backs were printed first in the initial
T206 press runs. Otherwise, this error card would only have been printed with the SOVEREIGN 150 back......if the SOVEREIGN printing preceded the PIEDMONT printing.

And, if that doesn't convince some....then the fact that the Joe DOYLE (Nat'l) error exists only with the PIEDMONT 350 back in the initial 350 Series press runs should
provide the final proof.

Indeed, American Litho printed the PIEDMONT backs first on the T206's in both the 150/350 series and the 350-only series press runs.

No big mystery here....since the PIEDMONT brand was the "flagship" tobacco product of the American Tobacco Company (circa 1909 - 1911).


TED Z

[MVSNYC]

Hi Ted- if you think they made 10 million cards (i tend to agree with your estimate), how many do you think survive today, and approx how many of each player (on average)? there was a thread recently where some people suggested there were 3000-5000 of each player still...i think it's less...what do you think?

thanks!
M

[tedzan]

I'm not going to venture a guess as to how many T206's have survived over these 100+ years. However, if my memory serves me, I do recall that Scot Reader
said in his "Inside T206" book that he estimated that some where between 1.6 to 2 Million T206's are in circulation nowadays.

I think that is a fair estimate......therefore, that suggests to us that on the average 3000 - 4000 of each T206 subject is in circulation (independent of backs).
And, of course these numbers don't apply when you factor in some of the rare backs.


Take care, my friend

TED Z

[steve B]

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

150 and 350 are far more complex.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

And they would probably have used different presses based on the size of the individual order. Based on the sheets/hour the presses could manage Piedmont was probably in nearly constant production. Hindu probably wasn't.

Since F649 packed for "other than Philadelphia" and presumably "Philadelphia" there would probably have been different sheets for the different distribution.
That's backed up somewhat by the Powers card, which is the only subject that has both no 350 series AND a F649 op.

It's entirely likely that piedmont was produced on a larger sheet than Hindu.

It's also likely that production was simultaneous. Piedmont being produced on one press while Sovereign was printed on another.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the fronts are specific to a brand. So there will be tiny differences between say a Piedmont 150 Ewing and an SC150 Ewing. This may or may not transfer to the 350's and tougher backs, but I believe it will.

The 150 series was produced in multiple stages. There are a few cards with at least three obvious design changes within their 150 production. (Tinker being the most obvious)

The subjects that were carried over from 150 to 350 were reworked. Conroy with the striped/non-striped cap, Ritchey, probably others. it's unclear yet if there were many transitional cards produced -Meaning 150 fronts but with a 350 back, or less likely a 350 variety with a 150 back.

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered. And ATC either slipped the ads through or was allowed to let them run since the cost of recalling them would have been high.

While decent margins are good practice even today, I've seen some evidence that ALC ran tight margins on at least one side of a sheet. That doesn't match with the factory numbers in the margins of SC150 sheets, but could still be what was done.

Getting farther afield,

ALC was pretty tight with the Hoe press company.

And Hoe produced some very advanced stuff.
Two color presses. - Picture two presses back to back so they print two colors in one pass.
And web fed presses, which print from a roll of paper rather than sheets.
If T206s were produced on a web press that would change everything.

There's some indication that two color presses may have been used for the T206s for at least some of the production.

Supposedly Cutteich was the first company to produce color postcards on an offset press in 1910. I think the article actually refers to the more modern CMYK four color process, rather than offset itself, but it also gives some insight to the overall process at Curtteich.
http://teicharchives.blogspot.com/20...ny-part-2.html
The press shown is a Miehle, but would be very similar to a Hoe press.

Postcards in production shown here, the rest of the site is a very good overview of different processes.
http://www.metropostcard.com/techniques3.html

An 1879 Hoe press is shown here. Probably not much different from those used in 1910.
http://www.howardironworks.org/colle...ress-1879.html

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Clayton

I'm reprising these two statements of mine from my prior post......because you apparently overlooked them, or they did not register with you.





Note, that I qualified that the T206 project was considered by ALC as a...." 6-color lithographic smaller project ". Therefore, a 19" (track width) press was employed
to print these cards (1 7/16" x 2 5/8") in a format of up to 108 (my guess) cards on a sheet.

Of course, ALC had larger track width presses for their larger projects (art works, advertisements, posters, etc.). But, anyone who is familiar with lithographic printing
of that era will tell you that the quality and the yield of the printed product is inversely proportional its size. Thus, ALC chose to use their smaller track width press to
improve the yield. This is important when you are cranking-out 10 MILLION cards. That's my guesstimate as to how many T206 cards were produced from 1909-1911.

I will reiterate the information that Steve B. provide us regarding the standard size sheets for this type of printing having been either 18" x 24" (or 19" x 24"). The 18",
or 19" sheet width is consistent with the 19'" track width of the press.

Sorry, but your concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable. Assuming my number of 10 Million printed cards is true, then any good printer would efficiently fill
out a sheet of cardboard with just a little border area sufficient enough to clip onto to for hanging the sheets so that the ink can dry.


TED Z

Hi Ted,

I didn't overlook anything you posted, like I said in my last post I even went back to read through this whole thread again.

I can see that you still get defensive, and become condescending when I question what you say, even though I feel I was being cordial. You can think my concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable- just like I think it's laughable that you have to be right about everything at any cost, even when we are talking about something that can't yet be proven.

Have a good one-

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by steve B

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

150 and 350 are far more complex.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

And they would probably have used different presses based on the size of the individual order. Based on the sheets/hour the presses could manage Piedmont was probably in nearly constant production. Hindu probably wasn't.

Since F649 packed for "other than Philadelphia" and presumably "Philadelphia" there would probably have been different sheets for the different distribution.
That's backed up somewhat by the Powers card, which is the only subject that has both no 350 series AND a F649 op.

It's entirely likely that piedmont was produced on a larger sheet than Hindu.

It's also likely that production was simultaneous. Piedmont being produced on one press while Sovereign was printed on another.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the fronts are specific to a brand. So there will be tiny differences between say a Piedmont 150 Ewing and an SC150 Ewing. This may or may not transfer to the 350's and tougher backs, but I believe it will.

The 150 series was produced in multiple stages. There are a few cards with at least three obvious design changes within their 150 production. (Tinker being the most obvious)

The subjects that were carried over from 150 to 350 were reworked. Conroy with the striped/non-striped cap, Ritchey, probably others. it's unclear yet if there were many transitional cards produced -Meaning 150 fronts but with a 350 back, or less likely a 350 variety with a 150 back.

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered. And ATC either slipped the ads through or was allowed to let them run since the cost of recalling them would have been high.

While decent margins are good practice even today, I've seen some evidence that ALC ran tight margins on at least one side of a sheet. That doesn't match with the factory numbers in the margins of SC150 sheets, but could still be what was done.

Getting farther afield,

ALC was pretty tight with the Hoe press company.

And Hoe produced some very advanced stuff.
Two color presses. - Picture two presses back to back so they print two colors in one pass.
And web fed presses, which print from a roll of paper rather than sheets.
If T206s were produced on a web press that would change everything.

There's some indication that two color presses may have been used for the T206s for at least some of the production.

Supposedly Cutteich was the first company to produce color postcards on an offset press in 1910. I think the article actually refers to the more modern CMYK four color process, rather than offset itself, but it also gives some insight to the overall process at Curtteich.
http://teicharchives.blogspot.com/20...ny-part-2.html
The press shown is a Miehle, but would be very similar to a Hoe press.

Postcards in production shown here, the rest of the site is a very good overview of different processes.
http://www.metropostcard.com/techniques3.html

An 1879 Hoe press is shown here. Probably not much different from those used in 1910.
http://www.howardironworks.org/colle...ress-1879.html

Steve B

Hi Steve,

Thanks for all of the information, this is more what I was looking for, and I appreciate it. It's interesting that you said you have seen a 1910 press in operation printing a sheet that's half as wide as the track. I had asked a few times (in the past) if the "track width" can be adjusted, and this is why I was asking- basically, to find out if they could print multiple sized sheets (or works) on the same press.

I also found during searching around on the web a site about movie posters, and they had some very interesting information-printing huge lithographed posters.

Thanks again for the information-

Sincerely, Clayton

[atx840]

Clayton, there are a few examples that show really fat top borders.....I believe the Young and Stahl are likely close to what the top border would look like. I also think the bottom border may be different width then the top as when the upside down backs are found they appear to be almost always miscut. This could be caused by the sheet being flipped and not aligned properly with the front.

Got to study this one in person, likely off of a sheet where other front miscuts are from. We would get one fat top border, several front miscuts of same player and one miscut of two players per column.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by atx840

Clayton, there are a few examples that show really fat top borders.....I believe the Young and Stahl are likely close to what the top border would look like. I also think the bottom border may be different width then the top as when the upside down backs are found they appear to be almost always miscut. This could be caused by the sheet being flipped and not aligned properly with the front.

Got to study this one in person, likely off of a sheet where other front miscuts are from. We would get one fat top border, several front miscuts of same player and one miscut of two players per column.

Thanks Chris!

Nice card. What you say makes sense. My thinking was along the lines of a printer leaving a decent area of border, and trimming off the excess after the sheet was printed-leaving room for error (alignment). Like, that there would be additional space above where the top border is cut off, before being cut to size.

My first real job, as a kid, was building gazebo panels. All of the lattice was always longer than was needed. After laying the wood down and stapling it in place, we would cut off the the excess around the edges before sending it to be sprayed (waterproofed). We never used a piece of wood that measured exactly right, and as a kid I didn't understand why-but as I got older, I realized it was done this way to leave room for error. I know this has nothing to do with printing sheets of cards, but my thoughts were along these lines.

Thanks for the response-

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Steve,

Thanks for all of the information, this is more what I was looking for, and I appreciate it. It's interesting that you said you have seen a 1910 press in operation printing a sheet that's half as wide as the track. I had asked a few times (in the past) if the "track width" can be adjusted, and this is why I was asking- basically, to find out if they could print multiple sized sheets (or works) on the same press.

I also found during searching around on the web a site about movie posters, and they had some very interesting information-printing huge lithographed posters.

Thanks again for the information-

Sincerely, Clayton

The more modern press I ran briefly in 1981 could print narrower than the usual 35 inches, but as far as I know our shop never ran it that way. They had two 35s, a 24 and a small one, 12"? Later they bought a 35" two color press.

I was pretty sure the old ones could also run narrower, but hadn't seen any proof of it. The sizes in some ads are shown as maximum stone size, and maximum print size.

Steve B

[MVSNYC]

Chris- here's a miscut example with a fat bottom border. not sure it helps in the discussion, but maybe it might.

Clayton- recognize this card?

[Jantz]

For me, the Young and Stahl cards hold some interesting clues to sheet size.

It appears to me that the third cut (or miscut) made along the bottom of the sheet produced these two miscut cards and the fourth cut along the top of the sheet was never performed.

Am I out in left field with this line of thought?


Jantz

[atx840]

I figured the miscuts were created something like this, the borders on my sheet are not at all correct.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Damn. I am constantly amazed by the research.

+1 this sentiment.

A very enthusiastic "subscribe" to this discussion, guys. Bravo. It is precisely topics like these that represent the very best of what our hobby can be. This is real passion, and meticulous attention to detail, pouring out.

[tedzan]

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


.........V................................................. .................................................. ................. 19" wide sheet .................................................. .................................................. ....................V
^
^
^
^......24" long sheet


** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..


TED Z

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Jantz

For me, the Young and Stahl cards hold some interesting clues to sheet size.

It appears to me that the third cut (or miscut) made along the bottom of the sheet produced these two miscut cards and the fourth cut along the top of the sheet was never performed.

Am I out in left field with this line of thought?


Jantz

I'm curious....what interesting clues do the miscut Young and Stahl cards suggest to you regarding the sheet size ?

Also, what are your thoughts of how the T206's were printed ?


TED Z

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


...... V................................................. .................................................. ....................... 19 inches .................................................. .................................................. ......................V




** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..



TED Z

For those cards that's an entirely plausible sheet.

But it's also a nice example of cross-brand complexity.

When the pop report numbers are looked at some interesting things come up

A couple notes first

There are obvious known problems with population report numbers. Crossovers, crack and resubmit, both skew the numbers. For now they're the best numbers we have.

HOF or high demand players/poses typically run about double the population of commons. That seems to hold true across ALL T206s, and maybe other sets too.

The McGraw numbers are even less exact than usual for pop report numbers. Many were done without noting the pose so I had to adjust the numbers for by splitting the unknown poses by the ratio for the brand.

And - the McGraw missing from cycle 460 is no error, apparently SGC hasn't handled one. It is a verified card though. (Congrats to whoever has it, it appear to be a really tough one.

SC Pied Sov AB Cycle
Devore 38 68 12 12 1
Duffy 75 115 26 13 5
Ford 41 54 37 11 5
Gandil 76 89 25 6 2
Hummell 48 67 16 6 2
McGraw 66* 113 20 3
Pfeffer 40 65 14 6 4
Tannehill 43 67 40 4 2
Wheat 77 126 19 6 2
Crandall 54 70 23 11 1
Geyer 53 65 21 7 3
Sheckard 50 81 18 12 2


Looking at these numbers things stay ok with Piedmont and SC. The players expected are not quite double the commons, and there are no surprises - All the Piedmonts are more common than the SCs. (SGC doesn't show factories, something I'd love to see done. )

Sovereign we start to see "problems" Most are in the mid teens to low 20's in population. Except Tannehill and Ford at 40 and 37. And the players I'd expect to be in that range aren't. There could be a few reasons for that. Maybe more Sov 460 HOFers were graded before SGC, so the numbers are skewed. That's still not really explaining why Ford and Tannehill are so common. Both very nearly as common as the SC version.

Moving on to AB I'd expect to see the same pattern. That's generally true, except Tannehill is one of the toughest. And three other commons seem to be "too common" And ALL the higher demand cards are tougher.

Cycles appear to get back to a more normal pattern. But except Duffy the higher demand cards still seem underpopulated. Especially McGraw.

The different patterns make me think the sheet layouts were different for the less popular brands. The Superprints aren't a good fit as potential sheet mates on A Sovereign sheet, are almost entirely excluded for AB - The popreport shows a single Chase. I think that's probably a mistake. They barely fit with Cycle. but would require an unbalanced sheet, for instance one or two superprints replacing cards in the column of 8

The sample size for Cycle is probably too small for the numbers to have much meaning.

The possibility is still there that a lot of the Sov, AB, Cycle high demand cards were graded before SGC came along, which would make the numbers more sensible.

PSA doesn't indicate the series, and I haven't run the PSA numbers for these 460 only cards.

I've done some of the 150 series, and none of the 350's the 150's seem remarkably consistent, aside from the rarities there are only one or two odd looking numbers.

Steve B

[steve B]

Darn, all the spaces got stripped out of the grid of pop report numbers.

I'll have to do a graphic or scan of some sort.

Steve b

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by steve B

That Wagner would be shown in an ad for a brand his card wasn't included in is not unusual. The leadtimes for publication were long enough that the ad was probably sent to newspapers before the card was pulled from production. Whether the reason for the pull was over payment or Honus not wanting to be on a tobacco card wouldn't have mattered.

I agree Steve. Hence (among several other reasons set forth in my as of yet unanswered queries) my view that Wags was on the original 150 series checklist, not an "add-on" as theorized by T206 Resource.

But hey, these are all just theories and it's perfectly acceptable for rational people to use some introspection and give credit where due, admitting error where appropriate.

Edited to add: By the way, this is perhaps OT, but i want to give T206 Resource credit for discovering, without much fanfare as far as I can tell, that Schaefer (Detroit) and Spencer are (at least probable) Sweet Cap 350 and Sovereign 350 no-prints--and thus are (at least likely) part of what was once called the "elite eight" 150/350 subjects who are not possible with either of those backs but has over time grown to a larger group. Good job on that one--probably worthy of a short article.

[tedzan]

My selection of the 12 guys from 460-only series that I refer to as the "Exclusive 12" is not based on any POP reports. These 12 subjects are sort of "unique" with respect
to the other 36 subjects that were printed with only 460 series backs.

I've tracked these 12 for the past 6 years while in the process of completing my all-SOVEREIGN set, and the following T206 sub-sets....AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, red HINDU,
and SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory 42.

If you haven't read my thread regarding these 12 - T206's and why they are special, take some time to do so....http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Chris- here's a miscut example with a fat bottom border. not sure it helps in the discussion, but maybe it might.

Clayton- recognize this card?

Why yes, it does look a bit familiar to me

Great scan of it-thanks for posting it I'm glad Simon found a good home. Hope all is well with you!

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by atx840

I figured the miscuts were created something like this, the borders on my sheet are not at all correct.

Nice work, as usual!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Shown here is my concept of a 96-card press run of T206's printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet**. For illustration, I depict the 12 subjects in the 460-only series, of
which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For more info on these 12 cards, check-out this thread..... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


Assuming the printing of these cards was centered as depicted on this sheet, then the side borders are is 7/8" each. And, the top and bottom borders are 1 1/2" each.


.........V................................................. .................................................. ................. 19" wide sheet .................................................. .................................................. ....................V
^
^
^
^......24" long sheet


** Note this standard sheet size was provided by Steve B. The 19" width is consistent with early 20th Century lithographic printing presses. The length of the sheet
can be a variable, depending on the number of cards being printed..


TED Z

Hi Ted,

Just curious as to how one of these would look using different subjects, other than the exclusive twelve. As an example, what would be another plausible group put together on a sheet this size? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

My selection of the 12 guys from 460-only series that I refer to as the "Exclusive 12" is not based on any POP reports. These 12 subjects are sort of "unique" with respect
to the other 36 subjects that were printed with only 460 series backs.

I've tracked these 12 for the past 6 years while in the process of completing my all-SOVEREIGN set, and the following T206 sub-sets....AMERICAN BEAUTY 460, red HINDU,
and SWEET CAPORAL 460, Factory 42.

If you haven't read my thread regarding these 12 - T206's and why they are special, take some time to do so....http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163949


TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

I just reread the opening, and it's another part of the same point.

Those 12 are the only 460 onlys with Red Hindu.

That makes the sheet as you've shown it something I'd think of as probably correct.

The point I was making with the pop report numbers doesn't change that, at least as far as RH, SC and Piedmont. But for other brands the numbers indicate a different layout is likely, either with different players added, OR with an unbalanced layout including more of some players and less of others.

This particular group is a good one to illustrate the idea that the layouts may have varied between brands.

There's a lot of room in the theory to be wrong, and a lot of potential upside if it's right.

It's entirely possible that both the 17/34 theory and the 6/12 theory are correct. Smaller sheets make sense for Brands like Hindu and BL, larger sheets make more sense for SC and Piedmont.

When I started getting into this I looked for small groups that had some feature that would easily set them aside from the other 524 cards.

This is one, the 150 onlys are another.

All the rare cards are also good to look at since they were likely only printed from one set of plates.

My long term insane project is tracking tiny front differences like the alignment marks and matching them to identifying marks on the backs. I've tested it with some of the rare cards and it looks promising.

I believe eventually it will be possible to prove or disprove a set of plates being used for multiple brands or different plates for different brands.

And that will be a big step forward towards figuring out plate layouts.

What's really great to me is that there's so much access to a variety of ideas and experience. None of this would be manageable without the work done by people like Scot R and Ted who had/have access to a lot of cards. Heck, when I started collecting everyone I knew figured the series were simply additive 150 issued, then another 200 or so, then another 110. And that all most of the cards would come with all the backs.
The Superset spreadsheet has been a big help, and T206 resource has gone a bit further. The mix of newer ideas is going to push the envelope a bit further. It's too early to tell just how far, but I think combining the available ideas and information will let us "see" things a bit better.

While I haven't read Heitman, I have Read Scot Rs book. And I'm still quite impressed by both. Making sense of the volume of information to break things down into the currently accepted print groups is an impressive achievement. Sometimes we forget the challenges that existed before the internet became such an everyday thing.


Steve B

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Ted,

Just curious as to how one of these would look using different subjects, other than the exclusive twelve. As an example, what would be another plausible group put together on a sheet this size? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

My research indicates that these 48 subjects from a 350 series design were arranged on the same sheet. And, were Double-Printed in order to fill out a standard
19" x 24" sheet (96-cards).

I do not claim that the arrangement of these cards is exactly as American Litho placed them on this sheet. But, I placed same color cards together, since I have
seen this printing practice on certain uncut Sportscard sheets that I have in my collection.


Note that the same borders are on this sheet as the sheet with the Exclusive 12 cards..... 7/8" margins on each side..... 1 1/2" margins top and bottom.



v................................................. ..................... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .....................v

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
|
|
|
|
|
.
.
.
.
|
|
|
|
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________|



Stay tuned....I will try to post another sheet from another series with different cards.



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

That would fit, and it would account for both the 17/34 theory AND the 6 theory.

It also assumes running a sheet through a 19" press the long way. I'm not certain that was possible or good practice.

Of course then I'm assuming a maximum press size of 19".


Steve B

Earlier in this thread you appear to be in agreement with someone's suggestion of printing a "34-card" format the "long way" on a 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard.

I agree that this is not good practice....but more significantly, it is mathematically impossible to print a complete sheet of 34 cards on this sheet in this manner.

When you do the math (17 x 1 7/16" = 24 7/16") it exceeds the length of the 24" cardboard sheet.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

My research indicates that these 48 subjects from a 350 series design were arranged on the same sheet. And, were Double-Printed in order to fill out a standard
19" x 24" sheet (96-cards).

I do not claim that the arrangement of these cards is exactly as American Litho placed them on this sheet. But, I placed same color cards together, since I have
seen this printing practice on certain uncut Sportscard sheets that I have in my collection.


Note that the same borders are on this sheet as the sheet with the Exclusive 12 cards..... 7/8" margins on each side..... 1 1/2" margins top and bottom.



v................................................. ..................... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .....................v

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
!
!



.
.
.
.



!
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________!



Stay tuned....I will try to post another sheet from another series with different cards.



TED Z
.

Interesting, thanks.

I'm just trying to follow your theory Ted, if I question anything you say it's only me trying to make sense of it. Now, going off of this sheet, I'm wondering about the card placement. I know you didn't say this is the exact card placement-but, if they knew they would be placing the same 48 subjects, printed twice, wouldn't they (possibly) double print the same card twice vertically? Like Cobb portrait with another Cobb portrait right below it, Marquard portrait with another Marquard portrait below it, etc.?

I bring this up because we've seen the vertical miscuts and the amount of same name same card miscuts(top and bottom) ratio compared to different name same card(top and bottom). With this layout, every card would have the possibility to have a same card different name miscut(top and bottom).

Looking forward to your next example, thanks for taking the time to lay this out.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Oooops^^^^ looks like my quoting the sheet layout messed it up

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Earlier in this thread you appear to be in agreement with someone's suggestion of printing a "34-card" format the "long way" on a 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard.

I agree that this is not good practice....but more significantly, it is mathematically impossible to print a complete sheet of 34 cards on this sheet in this manner.

When you do the math (17 x 1 7/16" = 24 7/16") it exceeds the length of the 24" cardboard sheet.


TED Z

I think this post just made me realize why I'm coming up with so many questions for you Ted. You are making your theory fit this 19"x24" cardboard sheet and the 19" track width to the point of blocking out any other possibilities-which stifles the discussion. Let's be open minded here, as none of us were around then and we honestly are not sure of the exact sheet size or the exact press size. You may be exactly right.......but you also may be totally wrong. You also may be partially right and partially wrong. I find your placing of subjects on a sheet more compelling WITHOUT trying to factor in this cardboard sheet size and track width.

I understand you said this was considered a "smaller job" but without business records, invoices, etc. this is (in my opinion) an assumption. We know they ran larger presses- it's not hard for me to imagine that they would print sheets on a press that would take a "slightly" larger sheet-just sayin'

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

You repeatedly seem to have a problem with my reference to American Litho's use of 19" track width presses. I have presented this theory for the past 7 years on this
forum.
So, I want you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve B when he speaks of the same 19" track width presses used by ALC to print these cards ?

Furthermore, I will remind you that it was Steve who informed us that ALC most likely printed a lot of their stuff on the standard size 19" x 24" cardboard stock.
Again, I ask you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve about his information ?

Originally Posted by steve B

Lots of interesting stuff here as usual.

I'm still learning things about printing in the 1910 era, as well as what practices might have been followed at ALC.


So here's a bunch of info and opinions some old, some new.

The Goodwin sheet really can't be applied to T206. It's not printed, but is a photographic sheet of OJs applied to a backing similar to a cabinet photo. So it actually doesn't have a border, and isn't printed.

T206 fronts are more than 6 colors. More like 8 for many of them.

The work Chris has done breaking down the smaller groups within the overall series is excellent. I'm not really in the "34" camp, but have worked with his breakdown of the 460s, comparing it to available pop reports (which are admittedly flawed, but the best hard data we have right now) and his groups held up very well. Maybe one or two subjects that could be moved between groups, but not provably.

I've now seen a picture of a 1910 era press in operation, and producing a sheet that's about half as wide as the press track!

The 19" width comes from -If I remember it correctly- a floorplan in an article on ALC running their plant electrically. That floorplan specified Hoe #5 presses which were that size.

ALC being huge would have had a wide variety of presses available.

Steve B

Clayton......at least Steve and I have provided some meaningful information based on our research to support my theory of 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, or 108-card sheets using
a 19" press to print these cards on sheets whose size varies up to 19" x 24".

Furthermore, the structures of the various Series in the T206 set mathematically lend themselves to factors of 6 and 12. I have not wavered from my thinking regarding
this since the early 1980's when I first started collecting T206's and T205's.


On the other hand, you are "stuck" on the "34 card" sheet myth. And, anyone who challenges that myth "bugs" you.

Anyhow, I have an idea why you repeatedly question my comments on this subject in the past (and here in this thread). But, not when Steve B. talks about 19" presses
and sheet sizes of 19" x 24".

But, for now I'll keep my suspicion on this to myself.


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

You repeatedly seem to have a problem with my reference to American Litho's use of 19" track width presses. I have presented this theory for the past 7 years on this
forum.
So, I want you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve B when he speaks of the same 19" track width presses used by ALC to print these cards ?

Furthermore, I will remind you that it was Steve who informed us that ALC most likely printed a lot of their stuff on the standard size 19" x 24" cardboard stock.
Again, I ask you to tell us......why you have not questioned Steve about his information ?



Clayton......at least Steve and I have provided some meaningful information based on our research to support my theory of 36, 48, 60, 72, 96, or 108-card sheets using
a 19" press to print these cards on sheets whose size varies up to 19" x 24".

Furthermore, the structures of the various Series in the T206 set mathematically lend themselves to factors of 6 and 12. I have not wavered from my thinking regarding
this since the early 1980's when I first started collecting T206's and T205's.


On the other hand, you are "stuck" on the "34 card" sheet myth. And, anyone who challenges that myth "bugs" you.

Anyhow, I have an idea why you repeatedly question my comments on this subject in the past (and here in this thread). But, not when Steve B. talks about 19" presses
and sheet sizes of 19" x 24".

But, for now I'll keep my suspicion on this to myself.


TED Z

Well Ted, I probably question you (and not Steve "specifically") because Steve has shown that he is willing to at least "consider" other theories. You, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't support your theory-which is fine. We are all entitled to our own opinions. But, you stick to this 19" thing as though it is entire reason we should "look no further",,,,,


When I say I am not sure we can "unequivocally" say these cards were printed on a 19"x24" sheet, on a press that only uses a 19" track width, I am saying that to EVERYONE (yes, Steve also Ted) that I am not convinced that this should be stated AS FACT unless we have PROOF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also thought I remembered Steve saying he believed that the ALC did use different sized presses.

In my recent posts, I did not mention the #34. I have been trying to be open minded to what you present, but you get too bent out of shape when I question you or state my opinion (if it doesn't jive with your theory)- and I thought I was being polite enough not to make you feel "attacked".

Yes, it is easier for me to understand the #34, because it is based on print groups and not cemented in track width and sheet size. And, it's always presented as a theory (and a very good one), and not fact-although they always provide very convincing evidence.

There is no conspiracy here Ted, so speak your mind freely. I don't want you to feel suspicious about me- no one has put me up to questioning you

If an uncut sheet of T206's shows up and it's 19"x"24", you, Steve, and anyone else who has a problem with me questioning this will be THE FIRST people I will publicly apologize to, right here on Net54

Until then, carry on and I'll just sit on the sidelines.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

34 subjects of which two of these subjects have been Double-Printed in order to fill out a 36 card format. I chose Powers because T206 surveys indicate that this card with
the SWEET CAPORAL 150 Factory #649 (overprint) is approx. twice as available with respect to most others with this back. And, I chose the Matty (white cap) for the same
reason. Furthermore, the Davis, Griffith, Johnson, and Marquard cards are about twice as available with respect to most others with this back. Therefore, any one of these 4
may be substituted for Matty.

Shown here are two 36 card arrangements printed on a hypothetical 19" x 20" sheet of cardboard. If these 72 cards were centered, then the resulting side margins are each
7/8" wide. And, the top & bottom margins are each 2" wide.


v................................................. .................................................. .... 19" wide x 20" long sheet .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................v
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
........
..............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________



Triple-Printing (108-card sheet) of these 36-card formats is possible on a standard 19" x 24" sheet. This would be more efficient use of the cardboard (printers do not like to
waste paper). However, it would be a tight squeeze.


TED Z

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Earlier in this thread you appear to be in agreement with someone's suggestion of printing a "34-card" format the "long way" on a 19" x 24" sheet of cardboard.

I agree that this is not good practice....but more significantly, it is mathematically impossible to print a complete sheet of 34 cards on this sheet in this manner.

When you do the math (17 x 1 7/16" = 24 7/16") it exceeds the length of the 24" cardboard sheet.


TED Z

That's probably from seeing the breakdowns Chris has done splitting the 460s into smaller groups. His groups are based more on the 34 theory but with substitutions making up smaller groups. Obviously the sheet would have to be either on a larger piece of stock, or have a less regular and unbalanced arrangement.

I lean more towards your theory of 12 subject sheets and tried to use the pop report numbers to disprove his groups. And as far as I'm concerned his groups held up very well. At some point I hope he shares what he's come up with more widely, but that's up to him.

The Hoe #5 did have a 19" track, and the floorplan shown in the old article did show several hoe #5 presses at ALC. I believe the article was in scientific American but their archive is behind a paywall now and I can't find the copy I thought I'd saved. I also couldn't find the Hoe press ad I'd seen.

But that was only a diagram of one floor of a very large firm. Most large printing plants have several sizes, unless they're doing huge volume of only one sort of item. A newspaper would only have one very large fast press, but a general business would have at least a few different sizes.


There is a lot of small detail that leads me towards believing a far more complex situation for the sheets.

1) There are groups that work perfectly with a 12 subject sheet.
BUT there are also groups that Just don't and many of those either are or are much closer to 17/34

2) The fragment of packing log that specifies "other than philadelphia area" implies a different group of cards for that area. The easy way is to make a different sheet so there's no concern about mixing up which players went where. (Alternately they could have pulled the players they didn't want to send to phillly, OR perhaps ALC packed them in stacks of one player. Short of some miracle, we'll probably never know. A sheet turning up is more likely than an intact boxful sent from ALC to any of the factories) *

3) There's a lot of evidence for each of the current groups being sent to press multiple times for the same brand even within a series.
Examples
Tinker hands on knees - Normal, with traces of Chicago showing underneath cubs, and with Chicago showing clearly. At least two distinct runs, probably three.

Dygert - Comes both with and without red lips. In roughly equal quantities, so it's not a missing color or fading.

Obviously the Demmitt and Ohara show that the sheets were redone at the very least for Polar Bear.

Conroy fielding and Ritchey - Both have differences that split clearly between 150 and 350 backs.

Wilson - Orange or yellow sky. They're actually quite different, and it ought to be a more recognized variation. Certainly it's more of a different plate situation than Nodgrass or Dopner.

There's more, most of it much less obvious.

4) If we assume a simple sheet with a straightforward layout, and the same sheet used for all brands those subjects were available with then the pop report numbers should have roughly the same distribution across brands. This is generally true for Piedmont and Sweet Caporal, but breaks down for the other brands. So either there are some odd patterns to what cards get sent in, or the sheets for some brands were entirely different.

5) Hoe made 2 color presses, and I see some indication that some T206s may have been printed on a 2 color press. Quite often when there's a small color shift two colors are shifted equally. The Hoe#5 wasn't two color.

6) The number of dual name cards compared to simple miscuts showing two of the same name I think supports at least some sheets having an unbalanced arrangement.

So I suppose both the 12 subject guys and the 17/34 subject guys can call me a heretic. I think what's likely is that for brands like Hindu the sheets were 12 subjects. And for Piedmont they were probably 17/34 maybe more.
So both camps are probably both right and wrong all at the same time. Confused yet

That's why I like the wide range of efforts. Tracking the double name cards, the plate scratches, the factory numbers in the margins, the cutting marks (Why the Heck are they on the back when the cutting was done from the front?!) All that and more will eventually give us a much better picture of the production.

I also think we need to redefine the print groups. (Sorry Scot) And to look at each brand and series as its own set. At the level of the basic subjects there's a lot of overlap, but when the small details are looked at there's probably a lot less, possibly none.(So a common subject front will probably have small but identifiable details with no crossover between brands. )

To me it's more about what's possible, what would make sense in a manufacturing context, and what part of that can be proven.
I know my own theories are pretty far out there, and may not be something I can prove or disprove within my lifetime. (There are people who have done the same thing for stamps and taken decades to chart a handful of plates for one stamp. And that's comparatively "easy" since the sheet size is known and usually there are blocks of stamps available)

Steve B
* But damn, can you imagine one of the packers or loading dock guys or even a janitor liberating an entire boxful of Wagners or Planks before it hit the dumpster?

[Jantz]

Some of this information may seem obvious to most, but I'm going to include it anyway for some of our new board members.

I believe that the printing of T206 sheets was very compact and not much border was left to be trimmed. As Ted said in post #131, "printers do not like to waste paper". And I agree with him.

If the sheet borders were more spacious, we probably wouldn't see sheet numbers or crop lines on the backs of T206s. One could expect to see a sheet number or crop line on a T206 if it had huge borders, but actually its the opposite. T206s that have sheet numbers and crop lines are usually standard size T206s.

I do believe the Young and Stahl cards may lend us some clues to sheet size.

As far as sheet dimensions, I can't really add any information since I've done no research on that matter. I also have no idea how the sheets were cut, so I'm just theorizing with what I post below.

I think its safe to say the Young and Stahl cards were at the top of the sheet/column. If they were in the middle of the column and miscut that bad, they would look like the Phillippe/Engle card. (see below)

Also the Young and Stahl cards show no major print defects. Neither have a ghost print or a color shift and since both have a back advertisement, one could conclude that they we "finished product" waiting to be cut from the sheet.

I think the third cut that was performed along the bottom of these cards was the cut that ruined the card's appearance, but it also lends us a glimpse at how much sheet border remained above the player's image.

I boxed the Stahl card (see below) as to where the top border should have been cut. So is the excess paper above my red line remnants of the sheet border that would have been removed on the final cut?

Keep in mind the Young card is not oversized. I will post a comparison scan below courtesy of Dan M. I have not seen the Stahl card other than the scan posted earlier in this thread, so I'm not sure of it's measurements.

If a person were to measure either of these cards, I think we could get an idea as to how much of a sheet border actually existed before the final cut was made.

One last thing I would like to add. I have to agree with Ted Z. in the fact that the 12 players he refers to as the "Exclusive 12" were on a sheet together. I posted a thread back in 2010 about these same players being on a sheet together and have seen no evidence since to make me think otherwise.

Jantz

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's probably from seeing the breakdowns Chris has done splitting the 460s into smaller groups. His groups are based more on the 34 theory but with substitutions making up smaller groups. Obviously the sheet would have to be either on a larger piece of stock, or have a less regular and unbalanced arrangement.

I lean more towards your theory of 12 subject sheets and tried to use the pop report numbers to disprove his groups. And as far as I'm concerned his groups held up very well. At some point I hope he shares what he's come up with more widely, but that's up to him.

The Hoe #5 did have a 19" track, and the floorplan shown in the old article did show several hoe #5 presses at ALC. I believe the article was in scientific American but their archive is behind a paywall now and I can't find the copy I thought I'd saved. I also couldn't find the Hoe press ad I'd seen.

But that was only a diagram of one floor of a very large firm. Most large printing plants have several sizes, unless they're doing huge volume of only one sort of item. A newspaper would only have one very large fast press, but a general business would have at least a few different sizes.


There is a lot of small detail that leads me towards believing a far more complex situation for the sheets.

1) There are groups that work perfectly with a 12 subject sheet.
BUT there are also groups that Just don't and many of those either are or are much closer to 17/34

2) The fragment of packing log that specifies "other than philadelphia area" implies a different group of cards for that area. The easy way is to make a different sheet so there's no concern about mixing up which players went where. (Alternately they could have pulled the players they didn't want to send to phillly, OR perhaps ALC packed them in stacks of one player. Short of some miracle, we'll probably never know. A sheet turning up is more likely than an intact boxful sent from ALC to any of the factories) *

3) There's a lot of evidence for each of the current groups being sent to press multiple times for the same brand even within a series.
Examples
Tinker hands on knees - Normal, with traces of Chicago showing underneath cubs, and with Chicago showing clearly. At least two distinct runs, probably three.

Dygert - Comes both with and without red lips. In roughly equal quantities, so it's not a missing color or fading.

Obviously the Demmitt and Ohara show that the sheets were redone at the very least for Polar Bear.

Conroy fielding and Ritchey - Both have differences that split clearly between 150 and 350 backs.

Wilson - Orange or yellow sky. They're actually quite different, and it ought to be a more recognized variation. Certainly it's more of a different plate situation than Nodgrass or Dopner.

There's more, most of it much less obvious.

4) If we assume a simple sheet with a straightforward layout, and the same sheet used for all brands those subjects were available with then the pop report numbers should have roughly the same distribution across brands. This is generally true for Piedmont and Sweet Caporal, but breaks down for the other brands. So either there are some odd patterns to what cards get sent in, or the sheets for some brands were entirely different.

5) Hoe made 2 color presses, and I see some indication that some T206s may have been printed on a 2 color press. Quite often when there's a small color shift two colors are shifted equally. The Hoe#5 wasn't two color.

6) The number of dual name cards compared to simple miscuts showing two of the same name I think supports at least some sheets having an unbalanced arrangement.

So I suppose both the 12 subject guys and the 17/34 subject guys can call me a heretic. I think what's likely is that for brands like Hindu the sheets were 12 subjects. And for Piedmont they were probably 17/34 maybe more.
So both camps are probably both right and wrong all at the same time. Confused yet

That's why I like the wide range of efforts. Tracking the double name cards, the plate scratches, the factory numbers in the margins, the cutting marks (Why the Heck are they on the back when the cutting was done from the front?!) All that and more will eventually give us a much better picture of the production.

I also think we need to redefine the print groups. (Sorry Scot) And to look at each brand and series as its own set. At the level of the basic subjects there's a lot of overlap, but when the small details are looked at there's probably a lot less, possibly none.(So a common subject front will probably have small but identifiable details with no crossover between brands. )

To me it's more about what's possible, what would make sense in a manufacturing context, and what part of that can be proven.
I know my own theories are pretty far out there, and may not be something I can prove or disprove within my lifetime. (There are people who have done the same thing for stamps and taken decades to chart a handful of plates for one stamp. And that's comparatively "easy" since the sheet size is known and usually there are blocks of stamps available)

Steve B
* But damn, can you imagine one of the packers or loading dock guys or even a janitor liberating an entire boxful of Wagners or Planks before it hit the dumpster?

This is an excellent post, thank you Steve.

You actually made the point I was trying to make earlier when you said the following:

"The Hoe #5 did have a 19" track, and the floorplan shown in the old article did show Hoe#5 presses at ALC. I believe the article was in Scientific American but their article is behind a paywall and I can't find the copy I thought I'd saved. I also couldn't find the Hoe press add I'd seen.

But that was only a diagram of one floor of a very large firm. Most large printing plants have several sizes, unless they're doing huge volume of only one sort of item. A newspaper would have only one very large fast press, but a general business would have at least a few different sizes."

The point I was trying to make, simply, was that the ALC ran different sized presses. I confirmed through the Library of Congress that they have ALC lithograph advertising posters measuring 22"x28" from the same timeframe. These dimensions are NOT that much larger than "19x24". We are talking 3" one way and 4" another. So, no argument that they ran Hoe #5's with a 19" track- just that they also ran presses that could do pieces slightly bigger. And, since we don't have an actual sheet of T206's, *my opinion* is that we shouldn't be letting the dimensions "19x24" be the guiding light end all is all.

With that being said-IF the ALC only ran one size press- you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me about this.

Also, I am not saying anyone is wrong when it comes to the numbers 6, 12, or even 48 subjects to a sheet doubled. I am intrigued by this, just as I am by 34 subjects with a horizontal row of 17. Most members have been to T206Resource, but to those new members who haven't, Tim wrote a great article about "Sheet Mystique", and I recommend everyone who loves T206's to check it out: http://t206resource.com/Article-T206...stique-34.html

Steve- I appreciate you being open minded and I really enjoy reading your posts.

Jantz- Same goes for you, I always enjoy your posts as well, and I agree that the Young and Stahl cards could have some of the clues we are looking for. Thanks for posting those

So much for the sidelines

Sincerely, Clayton

[Pat R]

Jantz, I was curious about the size of the Stahl card that Chris posted
also, so yesterday I took some measurements of the scan on my laptop screen. I measured from the top blue border line to the bottom of the
S in subjects which was 9/16 and on an in hand card it measures 19/32
so the scan on my screen is just a fraction smaller than actual size.

On my screen the card measures 2 1/2 inches so I think it is a normal
size card.

The top border measures 9/16 so when you allow for a normal
card border that would leave a shy 1/2 inch of excess boarder at the top.

A question I have for Steve B and the other knowledgeable printing
guys is: would the bottom of the sheet have the same excess or
just the top to eliminate an extra cut?

Patrick

[atx840]

Comparison prior to being slabbed.

[Pat R]

Really Nice card Chris!!!! ( I didn't know it was yours I thought it was a scan you had).

Patrick

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Clayton - Why do you quote the entire post when responding, instead of just the relevant portion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

A question I have for Steve B and the other knowledgeable printing
guys is: would the bottom of the sheet have the same excess or
just the top to eliminate an extra cut?

Patrick

Typically a border is left all the way around. It doesn't have to be equal on all sides. Printing right to the edge of a sheet is just too difficult. Plus, those margins usually have a lot of stuff like marks to check registration and Sometimes identification of what's being printed. Like the factory ID numbers.

Steve B

[steve B]

The exception is stuff printed on a web press, which prints onto a continuous roll rather than individual sheets. Then the upper and lower borders aren't absolutely necessary. Although they're often there anyway.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Some of this information may seem obvious to most, but I'm going to include it anyway for some of our new board members.

I believe that the printing of T206 sheets was very compact and not much border was left to be trimmed. As Ted said in post #131, "printers do not like to waste paper". And I agree with him.

If the sheet borders were more spacious, we probably wouldn't see sheet numbers or crop lines on the backs of T206s. One could expect to see a sheet number or crop line on a T206 if it had huge borders, but actually its the opposite. T206s that have sheet numbers and crop lines are usually standard size T206s.

I do believe the Young and Stahl cards may lend us some clues to sheet size.

As far as sheet dimensions, I can't really add any information since I've done no research on that matter. I also have no idea how the sheets were cut, so I'm just theorizing with what I post below.

I think its safe to say the Young and Stahl cards were at the top of the sheet/column. If they were in the middle of the column and miscut that bad, they would look like the Phillippe/Engle card. (see below)

Also the Young and Stahl cards show no major print defects. Neither have a ghost print or a color shift and since both have a back advertisement, one could conclude that they we "finished product" waiting to be cut from the sheet.

I think the third cut that was performed along the bottom of these cards was the cut that ruined the card's appearance, but it also lends us a glimpse at how much sheet border remained above the player's image.

I boxed the Stahl card (see below) as to where the top border should have been cut. So is the excess paper above my red line remnants of the sheet border that would have been removed on the final cut?

Keep in mind the Young card is not oversized. I will post a comparison scan below courtesy of Dan M. I have not seen the Stahl card other than the scan posted earlier in this thread, so I'm not sure of it's measurements.

If a person were to measure either of these cards, I think we could get an idea as to how much of a sheet border actually existed before the final cut was made.

One last thing I would like to add. I have to agree with Ted Z. in the fact that the 12 players he refers to as the "Exclusive 12" were on a sheet together. I posted a thread back in 2010 about these same players being on a sheet together and have seen no evidence since to make me think otherwise.

Jantz

1st.....it's good to hear that some here agrees with my statement that printers are not likely to "waste much paper" in their jobs. Shown below is a hypothetical example
of the efficient use of paper with respect to this printing practice.

2nd....the miscut Stahl & Young cards suggest to us (as you well stated) were indeed top row cards on their respective sheets. It appears that both these two different
sheets were printed with a top border of approx. 1/2" each. I would think that most would agree with this observation.

3rd....the Exclusive 12 (as I like to refer to them) in the 460-only series provide us true insight into how ALC formatted the printing of certain T206's. These 12 subjects,
based on the availability of their various tougher T-brand backs, without a doubt show us that they were printed separately from the other 36 subjects that were printed
with only 460 backs. Therefore, we have a valid example to consider in our search for how other T206's were printed.


And I might add, that the 12 - T205 Minor League subjects also provide us a clue as to how these cards were formatted. It would not surprise me to find out that these
12 subjects were printed on a sheet separate from all the other T205 cards.


A tightly printed 108-card sheet with 7/8" margin on each side and 3/16" margin on top and bottom.


v................................................. .................................................. .... 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................v
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________

........
..............
..............
L_________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________




TED Z
.

[atx840]

Hey Pat, wish it was mine....got to study it at the National, great card.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

3rd....the Exclusive 12 (as I like to refer to them) in the 460-only series provide us true insight into how ALC formatted the printing of certain T206's. These 12 subjects,
based on the availability of their various tougher T-brand backs, without a doubt show us that they were printed separately from the other 36 subjects that were printed
with only 460 backs. Therefore, we have a valid example to consider in our search for how other T206's were printed.


And I might add, that the 12 - T205 Minor League subjects also provide us a clue as to how these cards were formatted. It would not surprise me to discover
that these 12 subjects were printed on a sheet separate from all the other T205 cards.


TED Z.

Hey guys,

Here is that recurring 12 factor again......it is found throughout the various white-bordered sets (T206's, T213's, T215's, etc.); and, gold-bordered (T205) set (1909-1919).

The artistic designs of these 12 Minor Leaguers (ML) are unlike the other T205 designs. All 12 of these guys represent teams in the Eastern League. They were printed only
with two T-brand backs: HASSAN Factory #649 or POLAR BEAR. The bios on the backs of these cards suggest that these 12 ML were printed at the tail end of the T205
press run (perhaps in 1912). I would venture to say that these 12 subjects were printed on a separate sheet of their own (without any of the T205 Major Leaguers on it).


Illustrated here is a theoretical 48-card sheet of the T205 Minor Leaguers (may have also been printed as a 96-card sheet).













Examples like this ML group of 12 - T205's.....and the Exclusive 12 of the T206 (460-only) series.....and the 12 subjects in the T206 150-only series.....and the similar examples
in the T213's, and T215's where it is obvious that the cards were printed in columns of 12 is certainly enough evidence in my logical thinking mind that indeed this pattern was
American Lithographic's printing format.



TED Z
.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by steve B

While I haven't read Heitman, I have Read Scot Rs book. And I'm still quite impressed by both. Making sense of the volume of information to break things down into the currently accepted print groups is an impressive achievement. Sometimes we forget the challenges that existed before the internet became such an everyday thing.
Steve B

Thanks Steve. I'm always gratified to hear that someone read and enjoyed my ebook.

And while I have issues with some of their theories and nomenclature, and their unwillingness to engage, T206 Resource is nonetheless a great site and has advanced the ball in terms of the master checklist. Tim and his team deserve credit for that.

[teetwoohsix]

One thing that is hard to ignore when discussing sheet size is the uncut sheet of 1911 T212 Obak tobacco cards. I understand these were printed in San Francisco, and not New York-but the sheet itself is 31"x23 1/2". And I know these are a separate issue unrelated to T206's. Just something to think about-

http://sep10.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=25005



Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

One thing that is hard to ignore when discussing sheet size is the uncut sheet of 1911 T212 Obak tobacco cards. I understand these were printed in San Francisco, and not New York-but the sheet itself is 31"x23 1/2". And I know these are a separate issue unrelated to T206's. Just something to think about-



http://sep10.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=25005







Sincerely, Clayton

Any evidence that t206 were ever printed sideways like on the Obaks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Any evidence that t206 were ever printed sideways like on the Obaks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, not that I'm aware of. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is what a sheet of T206's looked like- just pointing out the size of the sheet. And, in my opinion, it doesn't seem like the size of the sheet affected the detail of the cards.

Sincerely, Clayton