Some of the mysteries and myths surrounding the most famous card in the hobby.

[RCMcKenzie]

Steve, I was using "offset" as a generic term, or layman's language. I certainly am not an expert on printing or T206 Wagner's. I thought Pat's point about an image appearing on the non-Gretsky Piedmont Wagner, made the card less likely to be a reprint. It's possible I misunderstood or misinterpreted the significance of the ghost-like image on the Wagner.

[steve B]

Ok, I may have misread things a bit too.

The added image does make it less likely to be fake, as that sort of extra image is hard to duplicate convincingly. It would also require a faker to choose an image that could have been in production around the same time as the Wagner, and most aren't that clever.

Terminology confounds us all at times.
For instance, I and I think Pat think of "sheet" as meaning a complete sheet as it would have come off the press. I have to remind myself that to someone else, "sheet" could mean a few as 2 T206s on the same piece of paper/cardstock.
It's very possible the Sheet cut/trimmed Wagner was cut from a sheet fragment. If it was a horizontal strip, there was probably only one Wagner.

I think it's also likely that if the Wagner was pulled, most of the finished sheets that didn't already have backs would have been used for random stuff around the printers. Cardstock makes a decent dustpan, and a sheet or part of a sheet would make a nice dustcover for some finished work. And always use scrap to adjust the press.

[steve B]

The percentages by back are really interesting.

I think it appears clear that Plank and Wagner weren't on the same sheet. Or perhaps the same part of the sheet. But it's possible that isn't right.

It's very curious that for two cards that were probably pulled from production, multiple different backs are available.

That points to the different backs being produced at the same time, probably on different presses from a common stack of fronts.

Then the question is exactly how were the cards pulled from production, and is it possible they were on the same sheet for the 150 series?

I think even with the numbers being so different, we might look at the cutting. It's probable that a large number of sheets with Wagner and maybe Plank were produced with blank backs to be used as needed to fill orders for each brand and factory. So what's the best way to pull a card from production?
If you're both cheap and need to get product out the door, step one is to cut the finished sheets that already have backs in strips and simply discard the withdrawn card. But strips isn't how cutting is usually done with big sheets, as it makes for a very awkward second step, cutting a 2-4 foot long stack of strips into individual cards. So maybe after a short time, you decide that cutting the sheet essentially in half and discarding everything from the Wagner to the edge is much more cost effective especially if it's sort of near the edge and the discarded portion would also include Plank who you hear is also making a fuss about being included.

While you're working through the stack, the plate guys are resurfacing the stone and redoing it less the Wagner and Plank. Or possibly only redoing those areas, none of the references I've found get into plate repairs much if at all. With the labor to resurface a stone and start again, I think a repair is likely. With the more modern photographic plates making a new plate is the way to go.

If you're very cheap, and have little labor cost you cut down the big sheets into smaller sheets and print backs on them.

Or if labor is costly, you simply scrap the finished fronts, redo the plates and carry on.

Using scrap to make more product was absolutely done with stamps, creating some real rarities. I believe Intaglio press operators and Lithograph press operators were roughly equal at the time.

Knowing that the 150's were done 3 different times, it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the less printed brands that would lead us to think that they were printed from partial sheets. Like if the remaining portions of the Wagner sheets were used up doing some Old Mills or Hindus. Or if those sheets were not cut and used for the less popular brands.

[G1911]

Reminder that we are still awaiting the research and evidence that this card was not discovered in Florida, but in New York.

If it did come from a sheet, I think it almost certain it is not a complete sheet, and we are being too literal, what is meant is surely a strip or sheet fragment.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Reminder that we are still awaiting the research and evidence that this card was not discovered in Florida, but in New York.

If it did come from a sheet, I think it almost certain it is not a complete sheet, and we are being too literal, what is meant is surely a strip or sheet fragment.

I don't think you're going to get a response on the New York evidence Greg.

I'm not claiming it as proof of how the sheet or partial could have been discovered in Florida but I think it could certainly be a possibility.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wonder if Alan Ray is still living.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't think you're going to get a response on the New York evidence Greg.

I know, unfortunately. It’s a shame people will post fictions they have made up and try to pass off as evidenced fact. Nothing wrong with speculation, but speculation is very different from claiming there is evidence and research leading to X conclusion when there clearly is absolutely nothing.


Ray said he was saving the juicy bits for his book that never came to be. Wonder if there’s a manuscript or something that will eventually come out. Mastro is a lying fraudster with a long history of both that makes whatever he says difficult to give much reasonable credence too, as his stories change with the winds of the moment. Sevchuk is a relevant, deeply involved participant and eyewitness but his testimony alone is not a whole lot, and Ray was not necessarily honest to him about the origin in the first place.


Do we know what the other cards were in the find? I recall there were 50 or so from O’Keefe’s interviews (AKA - Lifson told him, who seems to be his only source for this part). I assume a number of the long slabbed high grade cards are these, but which ones I have never seen beyond the Wagner and Plank. A single Wagner and Plank could be present on a partial sheet, a panel, but there should be much duplication between the other cards from it. If there isn’t, these cards cannot be from an actual panel, they might be from small strips (probably not even from the same sheet) at best.

I still see no reason to think Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The evidence leans against it.

[lowpopper]

maybe they were all made in the 80s with the square corner bond bread jackie

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

The percentages by back are really interesting.

I think it appears clear that Plank and Wagner weren't on the same sheet. Or perhaps the same part of the sheet. But it's possible that isn't right.

It's very curious that for two cards that were probably pulled from production, multiple different backs are available.

That points to the different backs being produced at the same time, probably on different presses from a common stack of fronts.

Then the question is exactly how were the cards pulled from production, and is it possible they were on the same sheet for the 150 series?

I think even with the numbers being so different, we might look at the cutting. It's probable that a large number of sheets with Wagner and maybe Plank were produced with blank backs to be used as needed to fill orders for each brand and factory. So what's the best way to pull a card from production?
If you're both cheap and need to get product out the door, step one is to cut the finished sheets that already have backs in strips and simply discard the withdrawn card. But strips isn't how cutting is usually done with big sheets, as it makes for a very awkward second step, cutting a 2-4 foot long stack of strips into individual cards. So maybe after a short time, you decide that cutting the sheet essentially in half and discarding everything from the Wagner to the edge is much more cost effective especially if it's sort of near the edge and the discarded portion would also include Plank who you hear is also making a fuss about being included.

While you're working through the stack, the plate guys are resurfacing the stone and redoing it less the Wagner and Plank. Or possibly only redoing those areas, none of the references I've found get into plate repairs much if at all. With the labor to resurface a stone and start again, I think a repair is likely. With the more modern photographic plates making a new plate is the way to go.

If you're very cheap, and have little labor cost you cut down the big sheets into smaller sheets and print backs on them.

Or if labor is costly, you simply scrap the finished fronts, redo the plates and carry on.

Using scrap to make more product was absolutely done with stamps, creating some real rarities. I believe Intaglio press operators and Lithograph press operators were roughly equal at the time.

Knowing that the 150's were done 3 different times, it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the less printed brands that would lead us to think that they were printed from partial sheets. Like if the remaining portions of the Wagner sheets were used up doing some Old Mills or Hindus. Or if those sheets were not cut and used for the less popular brands.

IMO it's because the T206's were printed in phases and a % of certain backs were printed at the same time together in each different phase. The pop numbers and print flaws reflect that.

Here's an example of flaw on Tenney that was probably printed in the phase that Wagner was printed.

Tenney.jpg


I think we might eventually be able to break down the different phases by using print flaws and pop numbers for example the flaws and pop numbers show that for print group 1 the Sovereign 350's weren't printed in the phase with the PD350's, Old Mills and Sweet Caporal 350 25's and 30's. I think there was another phase where The Sovereign 350's were printed with PD350's Sweet Caporal 350 30's and 25's but not Old Mills.

Old Mill phase
Stats Killian.jpg

Stats Schlei.jpg

0Walsh Stats.jpg

[G1911]

Just to add on, this structure is present in other sets that were part of the 1909-1912 project popularly credited to the ATC and AL. It is rare that cards were corrected, but when they were they typically had multiple backs. For example, the 3 spelling errors corrected in T218-1 all exist on 2 of the 4 backs, even though they represent a small percentage of surviving copies and the majority of those same 2 backs are the corrected version.

This ‘printing in waves’ appears to be a significant factor. The ATC ledger gives some evidence that some series were issued in waves; like the discordant dates for different sport subjects of T218-3.

Some 50 card sets seem to have had 25 unique cards to a sheet, and sometimes a back gets only half the subjects, like we see in T42. It seems to suggest wave printing again, not just a 2 sheet construction but those 2 sheets being done at a time gap during which decisions were made. I think our evidence suggests this happened with T220 also. The gap in between sheets saw multiple decisions made, to expand the back distribution, to cheapen the borders, to modify a couple cards, and to change the entire art style between at least four production runs over ~6 months.

While advertised and thought of as series, the traditional idea that all cards of a series were basically printed and issued together like Topps cards does not seem to be the case.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

Just to add on, this structure is present in other sets that were part of the 1909-1912 project popularly credited to the ATC and AL. It is rare that cards were corrected, but when they were they typically had multiple backs. For example, the 3 spelling errors corrected in T218-1 all exist on 2 of the 4 backs, even though they represent a small percentage of surviving copies and the majority of those same 2 backs are the corrected version.

This ‘printing in waves’ appears to be a significant factor. The ATC ledger gives some evidence that some series were issued in waves; like the discordant dates for different sport subjects of T218-3.

Some 50 card sets seem to have had 25 unique cards to a sheet, and sometimes a back gets only half the subjects, like we see in T42. It seems to suggest wave printing again, not just a 2 sheet construction but those 2 sheets being done at a time gap during which decisions were made. I think our evidence suggests this happened with T220 also. The gap in between sheets saw multiple decisions made, to expand the back distribution, to cheapen the borders, to modify a couple cards, and to change the entire art style between at least four production runs over ~6 months.

While advertised and thought of as series, the traditional idea that all cards of a series were basically printed and issued together like Topps cards does not seem to be the case.

Topps cards were printed backs first then shipped to another plant for the fronts to be printed for a period of many years. It seems possible tobacco cards were handled the same way, especially as the reverses were monotone and would require less skill than the 6 color process used on the fronts. You would have a pile of back printed sheets to get through before the next batch came in, theoretically at least.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Topps cards were printed backs first then shipped to another plant for the fronts to be printed for a period of many years. It seems possible tobacco cards were handled the same way, especially as the reverses were monotone and would require less skill than the 6 color process used on the fronts. You would have a pile of back printed sheets to get through before the next batch came in, theoretically at least.

I don’t know printing, but I have never found evidence on the cards themselves for this or in the documentary material that we have uncovered. Not all backs were monotone, most were but not all (T68 Natural Leaf springs to mind immediately). I would expect that, if a sheet had the backs printed and was then shipped to another facility and had the fronts printed there at a different time, that this would result in more back/front centering mismatch than we actually see. Perhaps this assumption is faulty. It would also add expense, I would think, doubling your transportation at least. Fullgraff’s available pages from his ledger seems to indicate full cards at Brett, nothing specified that they are only doing half the work when the tables are accounting volumes printed.

Is there anything we have in support of a geographic and significant time gap between the back and front printings? Looking at our printer experts here.