I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet

[parkerj33]

Maybe i am misunderstand most excellent research, but .... it troubles me that there is only a partial scratch that is perfectly parallel to row 1 (in row 2). couldn't there be a plausible layout such that the seven cards in row 2( position 2-8) from weimer/pastorius to ?/mcintyre could actually be extended in row 1 (positions 18-24)? it looks like that scratch would line up....

Edited: actually after photoshopping it, it looks like you need a gap between your column 17 and the next row two scratches....so it would be row 2, col 1-8 added onto your 17 column row 1.

i state all this because it seems odd (but not impossible) that we would have a partial scratch in the middle of the sheet that is PERFECTLY parallel to the top scratch.

Edited2: One MORE thing to consider: if the sheet were 30 players across, the top scratch would perfectly extend from the lower left corner of a new row 1, col1 all the way through upper right corner of column 30. I don't know that we can say the scratch HAS to extend the whole width but it would be perfectly at the corners of row 1 if row 1 were 30 columns wide. I will try to photoshop it, but i am not adept. In other words, your 17 columns are actually columns 3 - 19, your row 2 (col 1-8) are actually columns 20-27, two unknown columns to left, and three to the right give you a scratch that goes perfectly across from top to bottom of 30 columns.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by parkerj33

Maybe i am misunderstand most excellent research, but .... it troubles me that there is only a partial scratch that is perfectly parallel to row 1 (in row 2). couldn't there be a plausible layout such that the seven cards in row 2( position 2-8) from weimer/pastorius to ?/mcintyre could actually be extended in row 1 (positions 18-24)? it looks like that scratch would line up....

Edited: actually after photoshopping it, it looks like you need a gap between your column 17 and the next row two scratches....so it would be row 2, col 1-8 added onto your 17 column row 1.

i state all this because it seems odd (but not impossible) that we would have a partial scratch in the middle of the sheet that is PERFECTLY parallel to the top scratch.

Hi Jim,

The sheet is just a template I drew using some of the existing scratches. The
reason the middle line is only a partial line is because I don't have any scratches on the right hand side to extend that line yet. For example: in the
top line the potential scratches in that line are missing between Williams/Lake to Shaw/powers, The existing scratches are marked with X's
the ones without an X should be found on Subject(s) named in the same vertical
row at the bottom of the sheet. Using this recent Williams as an example
it was in the top row with no X because it was previously unconfirmed and
it now fits that slot and has a scratch that matches the template.

I don't think any off middle scratches are an extension of the upper
scratch but I can't rule out the possibility yet. The middle scratch is on
a slightly steeper plane than the upper scratch and if it was an extension of
the upper scratch you would have the same subject in two different places
horizontally on a sheet.

[rebelsart]

Hello Patrick,
Just wanted to say this is fantastic! Great detective work. Just amazing.
Art M.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by rebelsart

Hello Patrick,
Just wanted to say this is fantastic! Great detective work. Just amazing.
Art M.

Thanks Art.

While all the other sheets have a vertical scratch to establish where
the horizontal scratches are located unfortunately the A-B sheet
doesn't but there is a very light partial vertical scratch on a couple
of Conroy's and a Murphy. Since it doesn't go through any of the
horizontal scratches these cards must have been above or
below all of the horizontal scratches.

Note: The vertical scratches on Conroy & murphy on the sheet with
the red line is only for the Murphy/Conroy connection, they aren't actually
through any horizontal scratches.