Originally Posted by frohme (Post 1606108)

Hey Pat

Your list here doesn't include the two I added back in post #4 in the thread, BTW.

--
Mike

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1605853)

Ted makes some interesting points, some more interesting than others.

The percentage of cards showing marks from plate scratches or streaks is currently fairly low. This could be from a few things. It could be that collectively we've only looked at/for them for a brief time. Pat has pointed out a couple of the other limiting things. In comparison to the P150's there are fewer scratches so fewer cards from a sheet will be affected. And when the scratch happened will have a lot of bearing on the percentage found. I think it's simply too early to draw much of a conclusion from that percentage.


The question of what sort of press produced the set is a good one.

If they were produced on a then fairly cutting edge rotary offset press that used metal plates it opens up a lot of complications. The plates at the time were expensive and not simple to produce. http://sites.tech.uh.edu/digitalmedi...y_of_Litho.pdf
I don't see a mention of them being saved for reuse, but it's possible they may have been as it was a fairly common thing with the stones. (Some were saved, others were resurfaced for reuse)

If the plates were saved, they would be just as likely to be damaged as a stone. That damage might be different, as different accidents happen to large, inflexible heavy things than happen to light flexible things that happen to also be large.
Diagonal streaks aren't all that likely on a rotary press. And consistent diagonal streaks are even less likely. Streaks parallel to the direction the sheet travels are likely, but these marks are not parallel to either a sheet run sideways or vertically. And a diagonal layout for rectangular objects would be really odd.
Rotary offset plates can get scratched, just as stones can. I have a 1981 Fleer card with a nice red line from a plate scratch, and I'm very sure a rotary offset press was used.

So to some extent the type of press used and how the printer handled the plates does matter. If plates weren't typically saved, consistent diagonal marks on series separated by time would most likely indicate a stone rather than plates.
Another possibility would be the printing of various groups of fronts in different quantities either at the same time, or consecutively - group 1 Monday and Tuesday, group 2 Wednesday........with the backs printed last. I think that's unlikely, especially as one group typically shows flaws from dry or worn plates. (Using plates to include stones for simplicity)


Even if the marks are indeed streaks, they're consistent enough to give us an idea of what cards were next to each other.

There are fairly consistent streaks on more modern cards, once the rate the sheets were fed at got high enough static electricity became a problem, and the solution was dragging a string much like tinsel along the sheets being fed into the press. With proper drying in between colors, they shouldn't happen, but on a lot of 50's era cards they're common.
I don't think the presses of the era, even rotary ones had a high enough rate. But some part of the press being loose might cause a streak.
Personally I believe these are too consistent to be anything other than plate damage. Scratches most likely, but if it was a rotary press they could also be cracks, which would explain why they're less common.

All in all, they're worth studying.


Steve B

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1606154)

Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).
Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).

This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941


Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.

TED Z
.



Hi Steve,

I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.

In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.

If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.

I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1606154)

Hi Steve,

I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.

In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.

If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.

I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1603682)

Great thread Ed! I have nothing to add but I'll be following along.

Originally Posted by OLDBILL (Post 1825891)

Although not very savvy about the T206's, are the scratches just on the backs? If so, is this related to the fact that just the fronts were coated during the lithography process?

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1826794)

For both T206s and E90's, the scratches found so far and studied just happen to be on the backs.

They were printed from stones, which weighed a lot being 2-4 inch thick pieces of limestone. A bit of debris could scratch the stone, leaving an area that would now hold ink.


It's probable that the scratched ones were mostly backs for a few reasons,

The back stone got used for a much longer time- as we've seen, on multiple different front sheets.

Being single color, and an ad, the scratches probably didn't merit redoing the whole stone. A scratch creating a line of color on the front might have. (Plus, there were at least 6 front stones)


Not all front problems got fixed, and it's probable that each position can be identified. Generally a scratch will correspond with any flaws found on the front. A real find would be a front with a flaw that doesn't have the scratch on the back. That would mean that that particular exact subject/position was printed both before and after the scratch happened.

Pat would know better, but I don't think any have been found.