Piedmont 150 plate scratch(es) progress

[steve B]

A while back I noticed a piedmont 150 back with what looked like a line from a plate scratch.

Figuring that there was a scratch caused by some debris towards the end of production, I started looking for more examples hoping to maybe find 4 or 5 that strung together which would be a step towards figuring out the sheet layout in some concrete form. Combining this with double name cards and miscuts might lead to figuring out a block of cards rather than just a couple pairs.

After a few months of looking mostly on Ebay I've found nearly 30 cards showing some part of the plate scratch.

That back plate got way messed up at some point.

At least one scratch running vertically, at least two runing horizontally, probably more like 3 or 4.

I've also found one other plate flaw that's consistent, and found on two different cards.

Here's an example of one of the plate scratches. This one on a Cobb bat on shoulder, which has so far 3 different positions showing different damage.


Cobb bat on also has one where the lines cross near the center of the card and one without a crossing line as well as a normal back.

Another surprise has been figuring out that the damaged plate was used for more than one group of fronts
And some evidence that it was eventually repaired to some degree but I'm not certain about that

If you've got scans of cards showing thses lines I'd be glad to see them and add to the ones I've seen so far. Don't worry about it being the same as one I already have, as I'm trying to figure out the posible repair and a few other things.

Steve B

[z28jd]

I don't want to get this off-topic from the plate scratches, but what you said about piecing a sheet together was on my mind today. I figured between the miscuts with two different players, the cards with the crop marks in the corners and the nearly impossible to find, piedmont backs printed upside-down, with parts of four backs showing, you might be able to put together a possible sheet layout. I figured the pied/upside/4backs are so rare(seven are known to me) that you could assume they came from the same sheet.

You just added a new way to figure out a possible sheet, that I never even thought about.

[Runscott]

Steve, this might be obvious, but I hate to assume anything, so please clarify if I am incorrect: the scratches are on a 'Piedmont backs' plate? If so, won't it be impossible to determine anything about card placement on the FRONT of the sheet? (since the Piedmont back sheet will be the same, but the cards on the front will change?)

[steve B]

Only partly.
The scratched plate was probably only used to print backs for a couple different sheets. I'm certain it was used for two different sheets and I'm hoping that's as far as it went.
(There are also maybe two different groups of scratches, one distinct the other not. The second looks more like it may be a crayon mark, perhaps indicating the plate should have been redone or erased for reuse if it was a stone)

It's still a bit early to tell much for sure, but I'm also looking at other identifying marks on the backs as well as specific front differences.

Between all of it it may be possible to get closer to a sheet layout.
It will be possible to get fairly close to a more provable sheet size.

I had thought that the scratches would have been on the last use of the plate, but that's turning out to not be the case.

Of the cards I've seen, there's one that throws a wrench in the works.
There's a Schulte front view showing the scratch.
But that can't be from the same sheet as the others because the available backs aren't the same.

I have found one of the other marks on two different cards, which means that the two couldn't have been on the same sheet. But that's something for a different thread.

At the worst, the scratches will show us a group of cards that were probably on the same sheet and roughly where they were.

We'll also be able to get a grasp on other things, for instance we know there were multiples of each card on the sheet from the double name cards. And we know there were sometimes different cards vertically from the double/different name cards.
Studying the backs in relation to the fronts should show for instance that there were 4 of each player stacked vertically (The number I'm currently leaning towards)

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

Only partly.

It will be possible to get fairly close to a more provable sheet size.

Cool - hadn't thought of that.

Originally Posted by steve B

Studying the backs in relation to the fronts should show for instance that there were 4 of each player stacked vertically (The number I'm currently leaning towards)

Steve B

Are you also thinking that some cards are 'top sheet only' cards and others are 'bottom only'? (for instance, the ones showing remnants of the factory number at the bottom of the sheet?)

Great little project!

[Pat R]

Steve,

Not sure if this is what your looking for but this Piedmont has a similar line.
Also whats your opinion on the lines in this Cycle card?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Are you also thinking that some cards are 'top sheet only' cards and others are 'bottom only'? (for instance, the ones showing remnants of the factory number at the bottom of the sheet?)

Great little project!

That's what I'm thinking.

Although I'd expect to see more with two different names if that was the case. And that's why I'm not entirely set on 4 being the number of instances of the same player.

But from looking at the rare cards, 4 looks pretty solid. I'm sure there are 3-4 Magies that can be told apart even from scans that aren't great. And that each diferent Magie front matches to a specific back.

Steve B

[atx840]

Awesome work Pat! This is starting to get exciting...for me at least

Looking forward to your thoughts on Plank John.

[wonkaticket]

Almost forgot Chris...here ya go.

Sometimes to me the simplest explanation is the most plausible…Occam’s razor if you will.

My theory is the T206 Plank card is a victim of bad timing and planning.

What I do know and this could be challenged as I don’t claim to know of all the Planks out there. However having kept pretty good records and images of most since around say 1999 I’ve noticed one thing. A good chunk of these cards are 350 series only about 17-20 of the 50+ sold Planks I’ve seen come across the auction block have been 150’s. Of this 17-20 (150’s) this includes the 4 Piedmont examples. Now one could argue people keep the better looking 150’s and dumped the 350’s at auction but I think in the 13 or so years we would have seen a few more.

Given the numbers of 150 vs. 350 I think Plank was added late in the 150 printing process and was obviously carried to the 350. Then for whatever reason was dumped from the sheet for another player, or was missed when laying out the second run of 350’s therefore making him a short printed card. Add a hundred plus years of bicycle spokes and mom’s tossing cards and I’m paying big bucks for Mr. Plank.

What was the process of the sheets, why or how I have no idea. Some folks on here mainly Tim Cathey, Jim Rivera and you Chris along with others have done a good job trying to figure it out etc.

The whole anti-tobacco thing I have a hard time getting behind for two main reasons. Plank is in other tobacco sets mainly via his Horner photo being used on a lot of them. Then second if there really was this anti-tobacco action from Plank why was he carried over to 350. Seems to me if I’m getting nasty grams from Plank I’m not doing two printings of him.

I also add my personal experience into this. Owning a company of which one of our divisions is producing premiums and or retail products for entertainment based IP’s. I know how things get misplaced or made in smaller qty’s due to timing or just simple human oversight. I doubt it was any different 100+ years ago short of technology.

Like I said I’m sure this could be torn apart, but ultimately it’s a theory and with no smoking gun or proof all we can do is speculate…this is my speculation.

Cheers,

John

[RCMcKenzie]

Daniels explained this to me about 10 years ago. He said, "Rob, It's only TBob and those guys, no-one else collects this stuff."

[Pat R]

Abbaticchio,Ames and Criss

[toppcat]

Hey guys-my comment above about a possible broken Plank plate was made with tongue way in cheek! I shoulda put a winker on it!

[wolf441]

Here's my one example.

[iwantitiwinit]

I searched through all my piedmonts and only found this one Schreckengost, sorry the scan isn't great but another possible piece to the puzzle.

[atx840]

Evers blue sky

[z28jd]

Saw this Young on ebay tonight with a nice plate scratch

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-T206-Pi...item2a276af2a0

[WillowGrove]

It took me a while to get to it but after checking my set of t206's I found two. In case I don't post a caption properly - The card with the scratch in the middle of the card is Mullin horizontal, the scratch at the top is Donlin Hands on Knees.

Steve B., I believe you're compiling this info - so thank you and hope this helps. -peter

MULLIN DONLIN

[steve B]

Thanks, every little bit will help.

I'm in the process of making a jigsaw puzzle of sorts from the scans I have so far. Then for the fun of matching them up.

Steve B

[Jantz]

Here is another one Steve

Donlin (seated)--Lower left


Jantz

[atx840]

Definitely agree Pat. Ill post my sheet mate groupings when I get home, this might help separate them a bit more and from there start to place cards in their sheet location.

Great work Pat and Steve.

[atx840]

The P150s were printed a few times with player changes, the following groups make up the entire P150 subset. If we can catalogue identical scratches on different fronts then those cards were likely in the same location on different sheet.

These groupings can help separate even further which fronts were on different sheets.

[Pat R]

Chris thanks for posting that. Take a look at the Criger and H Davis in the scans I sent you besides the plate scratch look at the mark on the lower right hand side of both of them.

[Luke]

Here's a Willis Portrait with a plate scratch:

[steve B]

Thanks Luke. I think that's a new one.

Steve B

[Jcfowler6]

Not sure if this counts but was looking thru my cards and saw a possible scratch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Luke]

Just noticed my new Waddell Throwing has a scratch:

[GoldenAge50s]

Found a nice card today with a big plate scratch, a P150 of "Turkey Mike" Donlin.

Hope this helps the cause in some way or another:

[Sean]

Fred, nice Donlin, with or without the scratches.

[GoldenAge50s]

Thanks Sean--and I agree!

[atx840]

Hey Luke, it's definitely an odd one and discussed previously but not much figured out. Thanks for posting.

[mrvster]

ive seen many hanifans with that plate mark....I have passed on a ton! about 1/3 of them have that(pied 350)

[Jobu]

Another Shipke with scratches that differ from those in posts 10 and 59.

[LKeeler]

Here is another seated Donlin that is currently listed on ebay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-T206-13...-/271723912892

[iwantitiwinit]

Just curious if anyone was working on putting the pieces of the puzzle together any longer. Haven't seen an attempt at a sheet back in awhile. I unfortunately I don't have the skills to do it.

[atx840]

Excellent work Pat, you've made some great progress on this project.

[steve B]

Pat has gone far far beyond what I'd ever imagined was possible. Truly amazing.

To make it more interesting......I finally saw a card that really looks like one of the scratched plates was either reworked or wasn't resurfaced all that well before having the P350 backs laid down. And that at least two groups of fronts were printed with this reworked plate.

Charles


Delehanty portrait



It appears to be the same scratch as one on Powell in the P150 series.

Steve B

[Pat R]

I didn't want to hijack Mike (bocabirdmans) thread on the BST. He has a
Wilhelm for sale with a plate scratch that shows how consistent not only
the scratches on the backs are but also how consistent the fronts can be.

Here's the example I have with the same plate scratch as Mikes, when you look at the front of mine you would think the dots coming from his nose and
mouth area are stains but if you look at the one Mike has for sale it has the
same exact marks along with identical defects in the top right border.

[T206Collector]

From the BST. Pretty cool.

[mybuddyinc]

Not sure if this will help, but here it is:


m012.jpg

[atx840]

Beauty Ted.

Great work Pat, as always.

[Beansballcardblog]

Was at a card show yesterday and picked up a P150 that has a back scratch. I’ll get it scanned and posted in the next few days. In the meantime, the blog post below has my video where I show it. Hopefully it’s a new discovery!

CARD SHOW ACQUISITIONS: PLANO CARD SHOW 6/10/18

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by wvu_class_of_2001

Was at a card show yesterday and picked up a P150 that has a back scratch. I’ll get it scanned and posted in the next few days. In the meantime, the blog post below has my video where I show it. Hopefully it’s a new discovery!

CARD SHOW ACQUISITIONS: PLANO CARD SHOW 6/10/18

Thanks for the video link Kin.

There are five different confirmed Covaleski scratches and the one
you picked up at the show is one of them.

Covaleski Group.jpg

Yours is the bottom scratch of a triple Covaleski vertical scratch.

Covaleski-1,3,5.jpg

[Beansballcardblog]

Well dang! Ah well, it's going to be tough to find new ones. Thanks for the note!

-kin

Originally Posted by Pat R

Thanks for the video link Kin.

There are five different confirmed Covaleski scratches and the one
you picked up at the show is one of them.

Attachment 319443

Yours is the bottom scratch of a triple Covaleski vertical scratch.

Attachment 319444

[Rhotchkiss]

This is currently on ebay (not mine). I am sure you are aware of it, but I figured it cant hurt to pass this on as part of the plate scratch project.

The picture is poor (again, its on ebay) but the scratch runs from above the A in "Ball" down to the right (through the "m" in Piedmont) and leaves the card between the bottom right corner and the "VA"

[SetBuilder]

The reason they appear only on the 150 cards is because Knapp and Pancoast were finally granted a patent in Feb. 1910 that finally fixed a major defect in the lithographic printing presses at ALC.

The blue lines on the cards are called gear streaks. They occur due to uneven pressure on the rubber rollers of the printing press.

The T206 cards were printed using a "web" (meaning paper roll) offset lithography press. This was new technology at the time, replacing the old sheet fed presses. Allowing for greater production numbers.

Because they were printed on an offset press, the cards never came in contact with the metal printing plate at all. The image was transferred to the card via rubber roller.


(In this simplified diagram, the ink gets transferred from the printing plate, to a rubber "blanket" roller, and then to the card.)


(CMYK printing for T-206. First the black border and name. Then yellow, cyan and magenta. Then the back in blue.)

The problem at the time was that the rubber rollers were made of pure rubber (instead of a harder, more durable synthetic material), which didn’t hold up well to high production numbers and tended malform, snagging the paper and changing thickness easily, causing uneven tension in the press, which would then lead to the paper moving out of position in a diagonal direction, shown below:



Basically a paper jam. One that would move in a circular path as it went around and around (based on what the printing machine probably looked like – a big circle). As the rubber would swell up slightly due to the pressue, it would make contact with the inked plate, causing the streak on the paper (and also scratching and damaging the plate).

In order to combat this, Knapp and Pancoast devised a fix by inserting a middle section of the web feed (highlighted in yellow above) that would control the tension and keep the paper pressure even most of the time. At least, that’s what it looks like based on the illustration and the explanation in the patent application.

Not sure exactly how the mechanism worked, but it had something to due with keeping the tension balanced with the fabric (I believe this was the term for the “blanket”, and I’m not sure if they’re referring to the rubber roller or a blanket wedged between the paper and the roller.)

[steve B]

That's interesting.

Here's the patent, which was assigned to ALC.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US...p+and+Pancoast


The "fabric" mentioned in the patent is not the Blanket, which was the covering on one of the main press rollers or anything wedged in between, but that does refer to the web itself.

Even if there was some sort of creasing damage to the blanket, that wouldn't produce solid lines of color. In fact it would generally produce the exact opposite, white unprinted lines. (Generally, as there's a possibility of some marks I've seen coming from a wrinkle but I can't say for sure that's what caused them. )
A sideways slip of the web would only produce wrinkles in one direction, along the web, and these scratches do exist in both directions, with a few cards showing an intersection.

There is some solid evidence that Some T206s were printed using a flatbed lithography press that printed from stones.
Have you found anything solid that indicates a multi color web press? It's possible, and I've seen a few things that make me think that a two color press may have been used for some of the production, but not much indication that it would have been a web press.

I can elaborate, but I'll probably have to draw some sketches, and it might be more appropriate in it's own thread.

What do you think Guys? Get into it here or in it's own thread?

[Luke]

I'd love to see this have its own thread.

Doesn't really seem possible logically (imo) that the Print Scratches could be "gear streaks". The scratches sometimes stretch the length of the sheet diagonally, and they make abrupt changes of direction. Definitely interested to hear more about the gear streaks, but unless I'm not fully understanding the term, I don't think that's what we are looking at here.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's interesting.

Here's the patent, which was assigned to ALC.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US...p+and+Pancoast


The "fabric" mentioned in the patent is not the Blanket, which was the covering on one of the main press rollers or anything wedged in between, but that does refer to the web itself.

Even if there was some sort of creasing damage to the blanket, that wouldn't produce solid lines of color. In fact it would generally produce the exact opposite, white unprinted lines. (Generally, as there's a possibility of some marks I've seen coming from a wrinkle but I can't say for sure that's what caused them. )
A sideways slip of the web would only produce wrinkles in one direction, along the web, and these scratches do exist in both directions, with a few cards showing an intersection.

There is some solid evidence that Some T206s were printed using a flatbed lithography press that printed from stones.
Have you found anything solid that indicates a multi color web press? It's possible, and I've seen a few things that make me think that a two color press may have been used for some of the production, but not much indication that it would have been a web press.

I can elaborate, but I'll probably have to draw some sketches, and it might be more appropriate in it's own thread.

What do you think Guys? Get into it here or in it's own thread?

Steve,

I guess it's possible to also do offset lithography with a stone plate cylinder.

Doing research on this a while back, I came to the conclusion that the half-tone patterns on the T206 faces were simply "Ben-Day Dots" and that it was likely easier to produce plates from metal using acid etching instead of stone. Given the large number of player subjects and cards produced, I think this is likely the case.

I think the early 19th century color litho cards were done on flat stone. They have a distinct look and feel.

Knapp was known for his designs of multi-color rotary presses. It would've been a very odd business decision if ALC printed T206 cards using flat stones and old hand-presses.

[Big Six]

Is it possible the backs were printed in bulk and then the fronts were printed as needed? There’s no “personalization” on the back that would necessitate that back and front be printed together or need to stay together (unlike the T205 which had fronts that had to stay with backs due to the bios/stats).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Big Six

Is it possible the backs were printed in bulk and then the fronts were printed as needed? There’s no “personalization” on the back that would necessitate that back and front be printed together or need to stay together (unlike the T205 which had fronts that had to stay with backs due to the bios/stats).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's an interesting thought Matt.

I think it's possible that was done for the more popular brands. Piedmont and SC, maybe not for other brands. Running the job on multiple presses would make sense for the sort of production Piedmont required.

The existing evidence suggests that it wasn't done.
We have no examples of blank fronts, or of other cards with a T206 back.
We do have a decent number of blank backs, and cards with multiple things printed on the back of the card.
So we can say that fronts were certainly printed on stock that hadn't had backs printed yet. But without a surviving example or something else like a workers diary or company documents, the opposite isn't certain.