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

[teetwoohsix]

Well, I don't know about that example of a sheet configuration Ted, you have the same player all the way down the sheet. How would you explain the 1 card 2 name thing? Different name at the top of the card than the name of the player depicted on the card. Like the ones Erick is collecting.

On a side note- could the Wagner strip show where he may have been on the sheet? It seems to me that (possibly) the ATC would have just cut that strip from a sheet, rather than print a strip? It seems logical to print the sheet, and cut the sample strip right from the sheet. What do you guys think?

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Since the Wagner strip is a proof it should be taken as a unique item.

It's possible that it was taken from a set of nearly ready plates. But it's just as likely to have been taken from the master, or from a set of plates assembled strictly for proofing.

As I've seen more from the P150 plate scratch, I've become less certain about plate layout. What's been seen so far argues for a higher number of individual cards vertically, probably 5-6. Horizontally I'm just not sure.

I am fairly certain that my initial thought of a small sheet with only 6-7 subjects is probably wrong. I'm not 100% ready to give up the idea, but what I've seen so far isn't encouraging.

12x9 seems possible, as does a 17 wide sheet. I'm leaning towards a group of complex 12x9 sheets because the fit on a standard sheet of paper is better.
The two name cards could be a result of a singleprints/doubleprints arrangement.

Hopefully I'll get a bit more time to work on stuff. The 2 year old has kept me running crazy all week and I still have to reply to some pms and Emails as well as try to arrange some new scans and try to add in the double name cards and the ones known to be pairs from miscuts.

Steve B

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by steve B

I am fairly certain that my initial thought of a small sheet with only 6-7 subjects is probably wrong. I'm not 100% ready to give up the idea, but what I've seen so far isn't encouraging.

Steve B

Hi Steve - We know a good number of subjects that were printed side by side in vertical rows. Most are just small groups of two or three, but the largest group is 8 subjects side by side. From this we can conclude that the vertical rows were 8 subjects or larger, unless you believe two different size sheets were used at times.

To me, two different size sheets doesn't seem logical, but I certainly can't disprove it and would consider anything put forward supporting the idea.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Well, I don't know about that example of a sheet configuration Ted, you have the same player all the way down the sheet. How would you explain the 1 card 2 name thing? Different name at the top of the card than the name of the player depicted on the card. Like the ones Erick is collecting.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton

Realize that the 12 cards I have posted in that 108-card simulated sheet are 150-only subjects. As best we know, this series of T206's were the first printed T206's
in the set. And, were not intermixed with 150/350 series, or 350 series, or 460 series cards.

Therefore, if my 108-card simulated sheet is valid, if any of these 12 - 150-only cards are found with 2 names....I expect that they will be the "same-name" version.

I have never seen any of these cards with 2 different names. I will be very surprised if any of them show up with 2 different names.

Check out Jantz's excellent thread....I welcome you to prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

On a side note- could the Wagner strip show where he may have been on the sheet? It seems to me that (possibly) the ATC would have just cut that strip from a sheet, rather than print a strip? It seems logical to print the sheet, and cut the sample strip right from the sheet. What do you guys think?

Sincerely, Clayton

In my opinion, that 5-card Wagner strip was not cut from a regular production sheet. I say this because the two following reasons......

1....The colors on the various cards are incomplete, although the Wagner looks like its colors are all there. Furthermore, the captions are in BLACK ink, rather than the
normal BROWN ink.

2....Wagner is a 150-only subject....the other cards on this strip (M.Brown, Bowerman, CYoung, and Kling) are 150/350 subjects.



TED Z

[rainier2004]

You guys are hardcore....

Ill probably never get into t206s but its great to see all this knowledge and constructive debate.

[MVSNYC]

Ted- is the above layout pictured correctly? seems like i very long & narrow sheet...if so, it creates an awkward proportion for a sheet. i also think the cards would be oriented in the other direction, not vertically with the length of the sheet.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Ted- is the above layout pictured correctly? seems like i very long & narrow sheet...if so, it creates an awkward proportion for a sheet. i also think the cards would be oriented in the other direction, not vertically with the length of the sheet.

Mike

Given......The typical width of a T206 is 1 7/16 inches

I contend that American Lithographic (ALC) printed T206's (and T205's) formatted in rows of 12 cards each.

Therefore, 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches. Now, it has come to our attention (from Steve B) that the standard size sheet (or cardboard) during the
T206 printing era) is 19" x 24".

Recently, a nearby neighbor of mine, who was in the printing business for 45 years (and is also an artist), told me that a standard size sheet is 18" x 24".

In any event, my 12-card per row theory (17 1/4 inches wide) fits very neatly with either of these size sheets.

Also, my research indicates that ALC operated 19" track (width) printing presses to produce these types of lithographic jobs (advertising posters, cigar-
ette premiums, etc.).


Furthermore, the big picture regarding the T206 structure makes a compelling argument in favor of my 12-card per row theory......check out this math.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects



Best regards,

TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Mike

Given......The typical width of a T206 is 1 7/16 inches

I contend that American Lithographic (ALC) printed T206's (and T205's) formatted in rows of 12 cards each.

Therefore, 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches. Now, it has come to our attention (from Steve B) that the standard size sheet (or cardboard) during the
T206 printing era) is 19" x 24".

Recently, a nearby neighbor of mine, who was in the printing business for 45 years (and is also an artist), told me that a standard size sheet is 18" x 24".

In any event, my 12-card per row theory (17 1/4 inches wide) fits very neatly with either of these size sheets.

Also, my research indicates that ALC operated 19" track (width) printing presses to produce these types of lithographic jobs (advertising posters, cigar-
ette premiums, etc.).


Furthermore, the big picture regarding the T206 structure makes a compelling argument in favor of my 12-card per row theory......check out this math.

Subjects........Series

..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row)

144..............150/350 (12 x 12)

204..............350-only (12 x 17)

..60..............350/460 (12 x 5)

..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4)

..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4)

...6...............Super-Prints

...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations
____
522 = total subjects



Best regards,

TED Z

Hi Ted,

Congrats on the prediction! Credit given where credit is due.

Now, my questions go back to the size of the presses used by the ALC. The 19" track width. I am wondering where the proof of this is at, because I have spent a ton of time trying to confirm this, and I can't. Not saying it's not true, just that I haven't been able to find concrete proof of this. Do you have any information that I can use in my research about this, like who manufactured the presses, etc.?

A very nice lady at the Library of Congress sent me some information, and the information regarding the size of some of the larger prints in their collection (from the ALC) are 22x28. She also believed that they probably used a variety of different sized presses. Any information would be appreciated.

Another thing that has me wondering-and I know these cards are completely different and there is no relation to T206- is this image of a Goodwin sheet. As you can see in this scan, there is a huge amount of space around the whole outer border of the cards. Just wondering if the T206's could have also been printed to have room like this on the sheets, around the outer borders.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.19675/

Anyhow, I'm just trying to confirm information- thanks in advance for any help.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

1st....my research that American Litho (ALC) employed printing presses (circa 1909) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects
dates back to the 1980's. It was from a library book, which I don't recall anymore. But, my memory for numbers is very keen.

Furthermore, Steve B. (our printing expert) has informed us that the standard size of printing paper (cardboard) available circa 1909-1912) was 18" (or 19") x 24".
These dimensions are consistent with my contention of how ALC printing these cards. For example on an 18" x 24" sheet of cardboard, I depict a theoretical sheet
of the "Exclusive 12" subjects formatted as a multiple printed 108-card sheet (12 across by 8 rows). If you haven't seen it, Clayton, check-it-out............
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=163949&page=4......Post #38


2nd....your GOODWIN example of 6 cards across this sheet essentially supports my theory. I have also considered that ALC printed the T206's formatted 6 cards
across the sheet (instead of 12).

The factor 6 is the fundamental denominator in the entire series structure of the T206 set......as, is evident in the following structural numbers.

Subjects.........Series

..12..............150-only

144..............150/350

204..............350-only

..66..............350/460......includes the 6 Super-Prints

..48..............460-only

..48..............Southern Leaguers
____
522 = total subjects


Furthermore, your GOODWIN sheet was most likely printed by the George Harris & Sons Lithographers (the American Lithographic Co. did not exist in the 1880's).



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

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Clayton

Realize that the 12 cards I have posted in that 108-card simulated sheet are 150-only subjects. As best we know, this series of T206's were the first printed T206's
in the set. And, were not intermixed with 150/350 series, or 350 series, or 460 series cards.

Therefore, if my 108-card simulated sheet is valid, if any of these 12 - 150-only cards are found with 2 names....I expect that they will be the "same-name" version.

TED Z

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.

The common thread is when these subjects were discontinued. Prior to that, every indication is they were printed on sheets like any other subject from group 1. It's certainly possible when a double name of a 150 only subject is found that the second subject may also be a 150 only. However, I also find it highly likey that it could also be any other subject from print group 1.

Lastly, I don't believe Wagner and Plank were included with the first cards printed in the set. There were three intital printings:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150
Sovereign 150

First being Piedmont which included Magie that was corrected. After Piedmont but in this early distribution Sovereign 150 were printed. It included exactly 150 subjects, as advertised, but not Plank and Wagner. I believe they were added after and included in later Piedmont and Sweet Caporal printings.

Just my two cents. All the best.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.

The common thread is when these subjects were discontinued. Prior to that, every indication is they were printed on sheets like any other subject from group 1. It's certainly possible when a double name of a 150 only subject is found that the second subject may also be a 150 only. However, I also find it highly likey that it could also be any other subject from print group 1.

Lastly, I don't believe Wagner and Plank were included with the first cards printed in the set. There were three intital printings:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150
Sovereign 150

First being Piedmont which included Magie that was corrected. After Piedmont but in this early distribution Sovereign 150 were printed. It included exactly 150 subjects, as advertised, but not Plank and Wagner. I believe they were added after and included in later Piedmont and Sweet Caporal printings.

Just my two cents. All the best.

Thanks Tim, that makes sense. Great post !!

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.

Plank for all practical purposes is a "150-only" subject (just like Wagner). They both didn't want to be associated with cigarette cards. Wagner went "public", while Plank
was silent and most likely issued a cease & desist order to ATC. However, ALC did not desist; but, continued printing Plank in their early 350 series press runs of SWEET
CAP cards. And, isn't it interesting that they avoided Factory #25. Plank's 350 card was shipped only to Factory #30. In my opinion, this was deliberately done to avoid
the Philadelphia market....which was served by Factory #25 tobacco products. Factory #30 cigarettes were distributed in the New York and New England regions.

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.

We have factual evidence that Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The "Gretzky Wagner" and Charlie Conlon's Plank were cut from same PIEDMONT sheet.
This I recall from my experience when Mastro was first shopping around the Wagner at the Willow Grove Show in the mid-1980's. This is an undeniable fact.

And, since we know that the fronts were pre-printed....followed by the printing of the advertising backs, it does not make any difference whether we are referring
to PIEDMONT cards or SWEET CAP cards.

We will never know how many Wagner and Plank cards were originally printed. Then discarded, after ALC was informed to desist. Meanwhile, the printing & shipping
of the other 10 subjects on my simulated sheet of 150-only series cards continued. The discarding of the Wagner and Plank in no way affects the numbers of the
other 10 subjects.

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.


TED Z

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by tedzan

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.

TED Z

Unless I misunderstand you, based on your mock sheet and your arguments for it, you're contention is that the cards only found with 150 series backs and Plank were printed on every sheet together.

Is this accurate?

Edit to add: I am aware that Plank and Wagner were on the same Piedmont 150 sheets. Do you believe the same to be true with Sweet Caporal 150?

I think the pithier the discussion, the more likely we are to understand each other and maybe make some progress.

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks for the reply Steve, I appreciate it.

I'm mucking things up in this discussion by bringing up the strip. I guess it's best to stay more on topic. Now, I don't know how to quote a certain section of a post, so I copied and pasted this :

"Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350."

This is something I've been wondering about. I notice on a lot of the 150 series cards, the brown writing (player name & team designation) will be a thicker, bolder brown. And, on a good majority of the 350 series, the brown writing will be thinner and lighter. I wonder if that has to do with the volume they were printing?

I know that in the end we can only come up with theories about who was on a sheet, how many subjects per sheet, how many in a row, whether they ran the sheet horizontal or vertical, etc.~ unless a sheet pops up or someone who has seen one comes forward- but, I think Tim and Jim's website provides a deeper understanding of the set and presents a more probable scenario with the print groups and also Tim's article about the #34,,,,,Ted, you should check that article out if you haven't.


Thanks for the great discussion and information, my brain gets a great work out from these type of threads

Sincerely, Clayton

[Brian Weisner]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Plank for all practical purposes is a "150-only" subject (just like Wagner). They both didn't want to be associated with cigarette cards. Wagner went "public", while Plank
was silent and most likely issued a cease & desist order to ATC. However, ALC did not desist; but, continued printing Plank in their early 350 series press runs of SWEET
CAP cards. And, isn't it interesting that they avoided Factory #25. Plank's 350 card was shipped only to Factory #30. In my opinion, this was deliberately done to avoid
the Philadelphia market....which was served by Factory #25 tobacco products. Factory #30 cigarettes were distributed in the New York and New England regions.



We have factual evidence that Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The "Gretzky Wagner" and Charlie Conlon's Plank were cut from same PIEDMONT sheet.
This I recall from my experience when Mastro was first shopping around the Wagner at the Willow Grove Show in the mid-1980's. This is an undeniable fact.

And, since we know that the fronts were pre-printed....followed by the printing of the advertising backs, it does not make any difference whether we are referring
to PIEDMONT cards or SWEET CAP cards.

We will never know how many Wagner and Plank cards were originally printed. Then discarded, after ALC was informed to desist. Meanwhile, the printing & shipping
of the other 10 subjects on my simulated sheet of 150-only series cards continued. The discarding of the Wagner and Plank in no way affects the numbers of the
other 10 subjects.

With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here.


TED Z

Hi Ted,
I don't understand how Plank is a "150 only" card.... We have have twice as many known SwCap 350 Planks as we do Plank SwCap 150's.... That leads me to agree with Tim, that Plank was added late in the first print group and continued over into the 350's... I also believe that Wagner and Plank were most likely on the same Piedmont sheet, but not on the Sweet Caps....
Hope you are well Brian

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
I don't understand how Plank is a "150 only" card.... We have have twice as many known SwCap 350 Planks as we do Plank SwCap 150's.... That leads me to agree with Tim, that Plank was added late in the first print group and continued over into the 350's... I also believe that Wagner and Plank were most likely on the same Piedmont sheet, but not on the Sweet Caps....
Hope you are well Brian

Brian

At least you agree with me that Wagner and Plank were printed on the same sheet.

We all appear to agree on....that the fronts were pre-printed....and, the backs were printed subsequently on these pre-printed (fronts) sheets as the orders
for the various T-brands came into American Litho (ALC).

Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction here, in that you guys are saying Plank was printed on another sheet ? ?
This does not jive with what we know.

OK, this may appeal to the conspiracy buffs....given that the majority of SWEET CAP 150 cards of Plank are Factory #30; and, the SWEET CAP 350 cards of
Plank are ONLY Factory #30....my theory is that ALC continued to print Plank (although he had informed ATC that he did not want his image associated with
tobacco) and shipped the cards to Factory #30 (NY). This was a deliberate move to continue issuing Plank's card, since Factory 30 distributed SWEET CAP
cigarettes to the New York and the New England markets.
Factory #25 distributed to the Southern States and as North as the Philadelphia area.

This is not as far-fetched as it might sound....recall that we have an ALC ledger notation informing the jobber......

"not to ship certain SWEET CAP cards to the Philadelphia region" (paraphrased)

Take care,

TED Z

[Brian Weisner]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Brian

At least you agree with me that Wagner and Plank were printed on the same sheet.

We all appear to agree on....that the fronts were pre-printed....and, the backs were printed subsequently on these pre-printed (fronts) sheets as the orders
for the various T-brands came into American Litho (ALC).

Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction here, in that you guys are saying Plank was printed on another sheet ? ?
This does not jive with what we know.

Take care,

TED Z

Hey Ted,
The only thing I agree with in the above post is that Plank and Wagner were “most likely” printed on the same “Piedmont” sheet given the existing examples, as well as the story behind “The Card”….
Otherwise, as Tim as shown in multiple posts like the one below… “What we know” suggest otherwise….

Originally Posted by Abravefan11
A few points to consider regarding the above quote.

-Plank is not a 150 Only subject.
-Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not.
-Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different.
-If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.
Be well Brian

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Clayton

Realize that the 12 cards I have posted in that 108-card simulated sheet are 150-only subjects. As best we know, this series of T206's were the first printed T206's
in the set. And, were not intermixed with 150/350 series, or 350 series, or 460 series cards.

Therefore, if my 108-card simulated sheet is valid, if any of these 12 - 150-only cards are found with 2 names....I expect that they will be the "same-name" version.

I have never seen any of these cards with 2 different names. I will be very surprised if any of them show up with 2 different names.

Check out Jantz's excellent thread....I welcome you to prove me wrong.




In my opinion, that 5-card Wagner strip was not cut from a regular production sheet. I say this because the two following reasons......

1....The colors on the various cards are incomplete, although the Wagner looks like its colors are all there. Furthermore, the captions are in BLACK ink, rather than the
normal BROWN ink.

2....Wagner is a 150-only subject....the other cards on this strip (M.Brown, Bowerman, CYoung, and Kling) are 150/350 subjects.



TED Z

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...6%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

http://t206resource.com/Print%20Grou...Checklist.html


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...6%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

http://t206resource.com/Print%20Grou...Checklist.html


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

The ones Ted showed are a subset of print group 1. None of them are also found with any 350 back or with factory 649 (Except for Plank, and If I recall it right all the 350 Planks are hand cut?)

Schulte front view should be included. There is a P350 that just turned up but I believe it's not a normal production card, most likely a wrongback(150 series sheet given a 350 back, either using up leftovers or as a makeready sheet that got cut and distributed.)

Magie should also be included. (Since at least one master and plate would have had to be reworked to fix Magie I consider Magie and Magee to be different cards Magie 150 only Magee 150/350)


Leaving out Plank and including Schulte, Wagner and Magie This group breaks into two groups, one slightly tougher than the other. With three exception Brown Cubs which isn't all that tough, and Wagner and Magie which are.

My theory had been that 5 of them had been on a sheet with Wagner, the other 5 on a sheet with Magie, and that both sheets had been withdrawn and the plates redone either partly or completely with Brown replacing both Wagner and Magie.

The other outlier card is Powers. No 350 backs, but he is found with factory 649. That one is interesting. Either they handled the sheets oddly to print the 649 overprints or Powers was on more than one sheet. Figuring that out would require looking at the tiny front differences to see if some are only found with 649 and some only with 150 backs. That's a whole project on its own.

Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350.

For that reason I think it makes sense to look at sheet layouts by series or if you must, by print group.

Some of the cards on Teds sheet show the P150 plate scratches, so they must have been printed well into the later part of 150 printings.

One attraction of Teds layout is that it would explain a number of things. In production, extracting the Wagners, Planks and Magies would have been simply a matter of cutting off the edge if it was on the edge and discarding it, or cutting into strips and discarding the appropriate strip. Cutting into strips isn't good practice, because handling the long strips in the cutter makes diamond cuts much more likely.

Another issue is the scrap of the log from the packing plant clearly stating "other than philadelphia area" Which probably means that there was a different sheet to produce the mix of cards intended for at the very least the Philadelphia area. Sorting stuff by player and where each was intended to go just doesn't work for packing/distribution there's just way too much manual labor and thought invloved unless there's a major difference in the cards themselves (Like the red bordered paralells sold in Topps product exclusively in Target. Simple to add in while packaging their order since the look is very different.)

All in all a highly complex problem.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Here's an example of a possible Double-Printed 48-subject arrangement printed on a 19' X 24" sheet. Leaving a 1 1/2 inch border (top & bottom) if the printed cards were centered
on the sheet.








TED Z

[tedzan]

Another example of a possible 108-card sheet printed during the 150 Series press runs. These 34 subjects and two Double-Prints ** were printed with PIEDMONT 150....
SOVEREIGN 150....SWEET CAPORAL 150 [Factory's #25, #30 & #649 (overprint)]....and, Brown HINDU backs.


Johnson .................................................. ......Possible DOUBLE-PRINTS................................................. Davis



DOUBLE-PRINTS.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...... Powers .................. Matty (Possible DOUBLE-PRINT)


** Double-Prints (D-P)
My selection of Powers, and the 2nd D-P (either Davis, Matty, or Johnson) is based NOT on POP reports....but, two T206 surveys totalling 16,000 cards, which I have.


TED Z

[cfc1909]

when the SC 649 set and the southern brown Hindu sets subjects were chosen, there were plenty other subjects available if 36 were needed. No reason to double print 2 subjects.



As for a survey of 16,000 t206s, that is a drop in a 55 gallon bucket of what is out there . In 1998 there were a half million t206s surveyed by AM and we have done at least that many more since.

Sweet Cap 649 subjects and southern brown Hindu subjects were printed in equal numbers.

[teetwoohsix]

Great cards Ted !!

Here's what I don't get about these two simulated sheets you just posted.
The only chance for a possible "double name card" (same name top and bottom) is the Powers and Matty cards. The double name/same name shows up enough to see that they must have (like in Chris Browne's simulated sheet) been in columns of likely 3 of the same player down (in order to find these double name/same name).

Then, you have the double name/different name top, which also makes sense if you look at Chris's simulated sheet. The sheets you posted could give you a ton of double name/different name at top (which are way less common to find) and basically 2 possibilities for a double name/ same name (which are way more common).

How does this make sense, when factoring in these double named cards (which I think are a key factor in figuring out a sheet layout)?

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Clayton

The simulated sheet I posted (post #41) consists of 12 subjects in the 150-ONLY Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #60) consists of 34 subjects in the 150/350 Series.

The simulated sheet I posted (post #59) consists of 48 subjects in the 350 Series.

This is your 2nd post on this thread in which your comments indicate that you have the T206 series confused.

The traditional classification (by Bill Heitman, Scot Reader, and long-time T206 collectors) is as follows......

150-only series

150/350 series

350-only series

350/460 series

460-only series

Southern Leaguer series

Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis variations)

Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l and Sherry Magie (error)


Any other manner of classifying these series is subject to confusion.


TED Z

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Ted-

I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above.

Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...6%2C+two+names

But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150:

Bradley-Bender
Killian (pitching)-Chance
Lindaman-Bresnahan
Spade-Cicotte
Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin
Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash)
M.Brown(port)-Magee

All of the above cards are from Print Group 1:

http://t206resource.com/Print%20Grou...Checklist.html


I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still.....

As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use?

Sincerely, Clayton

Now for the Wagner strip answer.

The transfers that would be used to lay out the plates and probably any proofs would have been printed on small manually operated proofing presses.

Those can be very small, tabletop size. And are designed to produce one print at a time. The proofs are examined for both design, and to see if all the color elements are in the right place. An example of something that should have been caught in proofing is Magie, and Doyle. There are others that simply weren't fixed until much later. Ganzel has part of the background extending into his hat. That was fixed, but isn't at all rare. But it should have been caught in proofing.

If the Wagner strip was specially printed to try to convince him, it could have been laid out and one copy made. Or they could have used an existing set of proofs. The registration is very precise, better than some other proofs. In looking at the scans I have yesterday it also occured to me that it has a background color making the borders tan rather than white.

Steve B