Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Piedmont 150 plate scratch(es) progress (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=159666)

steve B 12-02-2012 10:27 PM

Piedmont 150 plate scratch(es) progress
 
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.
http://www.mindspring.com/~sblackstone/cobbonbk.jpg

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 12-03-2012 12:35 AM

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 12-03-2012 09:36 AM

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 12-03-2012 10:05 AM

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 12-03-2012 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1058445)
Only partly.

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

Cool - hadn't thought of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1058445)

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 12-03-2012 10:59 AM

2 Attachment(s)
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 12-03-2012 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1058449)
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

steve B 12-03-2012 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1058465)
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?

Thanks! Yes, that piedmont is exactly the sort of line I'm looking for.
Who's on the front? If you have a front scan that would be cool.
That particular one is a new one.

I think the red lines on the Cycle are from a notebook or ledger it may have been glued into at some point.
It looks like there's a little bit of a line above the top of the frame at the upper right. Hard to tell what it's from, but it's interesting.

Steve B

Leon 12-03-2012 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1058480)
I think the red lines on the Cycle are from a notebook or ledger it may have been glued into at some point.
It looks like there's a little bit of a line above the top of the frame at the upper right. Hard to tell what it's from, but it's interesting.

Steve B

Seen those types many times and I agree....

Pat R 12-03-2012 12:06 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Steve,

Front and back scans of the piedmont. I didn't even notice the top line on the Cycle until
you pointed it out, the two bottom lines show up clearly with the naked eye
but I had to darken the scan or they didn't show up at all. They are actually
quite different than the scans, they are a sharp blueish line with a pink cast off. The top line comes down the right side to bottom of the top semi circle in the border and there is another line inside that one that comes down the top of the semi circle to the bottom.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.