Net54baseball.com Forums
Page 5 of 5 « First 34 5
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

Luke 06-25-2018 06:32 PM
No. The term "gear streaks" sounds like they are random streaks on a sheet.

The Plate Scratches are a pattern that was repeated over and over on each sheet.

Pat has stacks of the same player with the same exact Plate Scratch on the back.

SetBuilder 06-25-2018 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1789826)
No. The term "gear streaks" sounds like they are random streaks on a sheet.

The Plate Scratches are a pattern that was repeated over and over on each sheet.

Pat has stacks of the same player with the same exact Plate Scratch on the back.
Well, I think it's more explanatory than "plate scratch," since the printing plates were relief and not intaglio. A scratch on a relief plate would be void of ink.

Pat R 06-25-2018 07:55 PM
4 Attachment(s)
Hi Manny,

The gear streak information is interesting thanks for posting about them.

I agree with Steve and Luke I don't think that's what caused the
plate scratch marks. From what I understand the gear streaks
wouldn't be repetitive and the plate scratches are. As Luke pointed
out the same exact scratch can be found on the same subject multiple
times and on some sheets they same exact scratch can be found on
two different subjects.

Attachment 320974
Attachment 320975

Attachment 320976
Attachment 320977

SetBuilder 06-25-2018 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1789857)
Hi Manny,

The gear streak information is interesting thanks for posting about them.

I agree with Steve and Luke I don't think that's what caused the
plate scratch marks. From what I understand the gear streaks
wouldn't be repetitive and the plate scratches are. As Luke pointed
out the same exact scratch can be found on the same subject multiple
times and on some sheets they same exact scratch can be found on
two different subjects.

Attachment 320974
Attachment 320975

Attachment 320976
Attachment 320977
Pat,

Perhaps they're not "gear streaks" as I understood the term from the definition I found. There may be another term for the streaks in pressman nomenclature. One of these days if I have time I'll venture off to a printing forum and ask there what the streaks are called.

I still think my theory is correct. If you believe the Library of Congress' classification of T206 cards as relief prints, and you also assume that the owners of American Lithographic stuck to their area of expertise and operated a multi-color offset press, then the only valid explanation is that the scratch was on the rubber blanket roller and not the printing plate.

The Occam's razor explanation is that some kind of machine feed malfunction caused the rubber roller to bounce up suddenly, grazing the surface of the relief plate at a high speed, thus causing a scratch on the surface of roller which would hold ink and transfer to the card in the same spot each time. Either that, or simply that the roller became worn and scratched with use.

Because of the constant spinning of the roller, the scratches took the form of a helix wrapping around the cylinder, which translated into diagonal lines on the paper. The steepness of the scratch I guess depended on the speed of the press when the scratch occurred.

steve B 06-26-2018 08:24 AM
A few comments on a couple points.

T206s are lithographed for sure. Other types of printing come across a lot differently.
There are two main sorts of lithography, direct and offset.
Both use either a specially prepared block of limestone, or a plate that can retain water. Commercially, the plates have been mostly metal for around a century. But a "lithograph" plate can be paper. In fact you can make a lithograph at home using some porous paper, a crayon, a brayer and some oil based ink. (Getting it to come out any good isn't all that easy)

T206s were not done with a modern CMYK process. The typically quoted thing is six colors, but it's usually more like 8, possibly more.

Recess printing is essentially like Intaglio, and the result is much different than lithography. Feel a new banknote, you'll be able to feel the raised in since it mostly sits on top of the paper.

The multi color press shown doesn't appear to be an offset lithography press, as the inked rollers are shown printing directly to the paper.

The stones were heavy, and had to be laid out by hand from transfers. Making them and resurfacing them was a specialty, and making a stone cylinder with the proper surface would be harder and more expensive. I've never heard of a press that printed from a stone cylinder.

Here's a small shop from around 1917. The big press on the left is a flatbed lithographic press, the small ones center and right are letter press presses. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Room_1917.jpg

ALC was a huge company, and owned a wide range of presses. They were also pretty tight with RS Hoe company that made presses. (Not that a place like ALC wouldn't be on great terms with a few press makers. ) Hoe had web fed typographic presses - a totally different process- in the 1800s that were used to print newspapers. They also had web fed presses, but none of their literature that I've found mentions web feed combined with lithography.
They also in around 1910 sued a couple guys who had sold them on a photographic way of making lithographic plates, which apparently turned out to be a scam as the process didn't work and never would. And was also "sold" to other companies as far away as England. So photographically transferred halftones were very cutting edge at the time.
A book about printing processes from 1917 mentions metal plates, but still has them being laid out by hand from transfers, so photographic reproduction wasn't being done on a large scale.

SetBuilder 06-27-2018 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1789926)
A few comments on a couple points.

T206s are lithographed for sure. Other types of printing come across a lot differently.
There are two main sorts of lithography, direct and offset.
Both use either a specially prepared block of limestone, or a plate that can retain water. Commercially, the plates have been mostly metal for around a century. But a "lithograph" plate can be paper. In fact you can make a lithograph at home using some porous paper, a crayon, a brayer and some oil based ink. (Getting it to come out any good isn't all that easy)

T206s were not done with a modern CMYK process. The typically quoted thing is six colors, but it's usually more like 8, possibly more.

Recess printing is essentially like Intaglio, and the result is much different than lithography. Feel a new banknote, you'll be able to feel the raised in since it mostly sits on top of the paper.

The multi color press shown doesn't appear to be an offset lithography press, as the inked rollers are shown printing directly to the paper.

The stones were heavy, and had to be laid out by hand from transfers. Making them and resurfacing them was a specialty, and making a stone cylinder with the proper surface would be harder and more expensive. I've never heard of a press that printed from a stone cylinder.

Here's a small shop from around 1917. The big press on the left is a flatbed lithographic press, the small ones center and right are letter press presses. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Room_1917.jpg

ALC was a huge company, and owned a wide range of presses. They were also pretty tight with RS Hoe company that made presses. (Not that a place like ALC wouldn't be on great terms with a few press makers. ) Hoe had web fed typographic presses - a totally different process- in the 1800s that were used to print newspapers. They also had web fed presses, but none of their literature that I've found mentions web feed combined with lithography.
They also in around 1910 sued a couple guys who had sold them on a photographic way of making lithographic plates, which apparently turned out to be a scam as the process didn't work and never would. And was also "sold" to other companies as far away as England. So photographically transferred halftones were very cutting edge at the time.
A book about printing processes from 1917 mentions metal plates, but still has them being laid out by hand from transfers, so photographic reproduction wasn't being done on a large scale.
Steve,

That shop in the photo looks like an old school Kinkos store instead of a large operation.

ALC was a large sophisticated operation with rotary machines. They had to be. T206 cards alone were printed in the millions. Let's say 300 million cards were printed, at 34 cards per sheet, that's 8.8mm+ sheets. Plus all the other stuff they printed. I doubt that the press was anything other than a modern offset litho press with durable metal plates.

The technology was available at the time. My guess by looking at the T206 cards under magnification is that a half-tone screen was placed over the silhouette of the player on the printing plate. Think of it like a screen door on a frame with a stylus. The engraver would press down on the screen lightly for half-tones and press down harder for shadows. The underside of the mesh was inked, which was to be the acid resist for the relief engraving.

https://legionofandy.files.wordpress...nal-w-text.jpg

https://legionofandy.files.wordpress...nal-w-text.jpg

This was very simple technology so I'm not sure how Knapp was fooled.

Here, read through this blog and all the sections. I think you will enjoy it.

Big Six 06-27-2018 08:21 AM
Is it possible the backs were printed in bulk and then the fronts were printed as needed? There’s no “personalization” on the back that would necessitate that back and front be printed together or need to stay together (unlike the T205 which had fronts that had to stay with backs due to the bios/stats).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pat R 06-27-2018 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetBuilder (Post 1790180)
Steve,

That shop in the photo looks like an old school Kinkos store instead of a large operation.

ALC was a large sophisticated operation with rotary machines. They had to be. T206 cards alone were printed in the millions. Let's say 300 million cards were printed, at 34 cards per sheet, that's 8.8mm+ sheets. Plus all the other stuff they printed. I doubt that the press was anything other than a modern offset litho press with durable metal plates.

The technology was available at the time. My guess by looking at the T206 cards under magnification is that a half-tone screen was placed over the silhouette of the player on the printing plate. Think of it like a screen door on a frame with a stylus. The engraver would press down on the screen lightly for half-tones and press down harder for shadows. The underside of the mesh was inked, which was to be the acid resist for the relief engraving.

https://legionofandy.files.wordpress...nal-w-text.jpg

https://legionofandy.files.wordpress...nal-w-text.jpg

This was very simple technology so I'm not sure how Knapp was fooled.

Here, read through this blog and all the sections. I think you will enjoy it.
I think there was way more than 34 cards on all of the T206 sheets.

here's one that using the plate scratches makes it at the least 240 cards.
https://imageevent.com/patrickr/upda...=Sheet%203.jpg

steve B 06-28-2018 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetBuilder (Post 1790180)
Steve,

That shop in the photo looks like an old school Kinkos store instead of a large operation.

ALC was a large sophisticated operation with rotary machines. They had to be. T206 cards alone were printed in the millions. Let's say 300 million cards were printed, at 34 cards per sheet, that's 8.8mm+ sheets. Plus all the other stuff they printed. I doubt that the press was anything other than a modern offset litho press with durable metal plates.

The technology was available at the time. My guess by looking at the T206 cards under magnification is that a half-tone screen was placed over the silhouette of the player on the printing plate. Think of it like a screen door on a frame with a stylus. The engraver would press down on the screen lightly for half-tones and press down harder for shadows. The underside of the mesh was inked, which was to be the acid resist for the relief engraving.

https://legionofandy.files.wordpress...nal-w-text.jpg

https://legionofandy.files.wordpress...nal-w-text.jpg

This was very simple technology so I'm not sure how Knapp was fooled.

Here, read through this blog and all the sections. I think you will enjoy it.
That may be how the master for a particular color was made.

The actual plates/stones were probably laid out with transfers printed from the masters. If they weren't, each position on the sheet would have a slightly different halftone. There are very few differences in the halftone areas, and the ones I've seen are usually in different series.

ALC was indeed huge, and would have had a wide variety of presses. The shop I worked at was fairly small, but did do one job while I was there that was for about 1.5 million bank deposit slips. We didn't have high speed anything, all sheetfed presses. Start to finish was under a month, and If I remember it right the job was in the pressroom for only 3-4 days. From what I've been able to find, the rate we could print at was only about 4-5x the speed of a flatbed press.

steve B 06-28-2018 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Six (Post 1790208)
Is it possible the backs were printed in bulk and then the fronts were printed as needed? There’s no “personalization” on the back that would necessitate that back and front be printed together or need to stay together (unlike the T205 which had fronts that had to stay with backs due to the bios/stats).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's an interesting thought Matt.

I think it's possible that was done for the more popular brands. Piedmont and SC, maybe not for other brands. Running the job on multiple presses would make sense for the sort of production Piedmont required.

The existing evidence suggests that it wasn't done.
We have no examples of blank fronts, or of other cards with a T206 back.
We do have a decent number of blank backs, and cards with multiple things printed on the back of the card.
So we can say that fronts were certainly printed on stock that hadn't had backs printed yet. But without a surviving example or something else like a workers diary or company documents, the opposite isn't certain.

Pat R 04-13-2022 12:24 PM
It's been almost 4 years since anyone posted in this thread, once again I want to thank Steve for starting this thread 9+ years ago and pointing out the plate scratches. They have provided more valuable information about T206 sheet(s) layouts then I think anyone would have imagined.

They provide accurate and sometimes predictable information ( I have a card on the way that was a prediction based off the plate scratches).

Now that the site supports bigger images it should be easier for some people to see the scratches better.

I still need to make a few small changes to some of the sheets

Here's the first sheet, this one is found with two different sets of fronts
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...1A%20Front.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...1B%20Front.jpg[/IMG]
one of the two fronts has Sheckard next to Goode which is also supported by this SC150/30 miscut
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...kard-Goode.jpg[/IMG]
Here's the back of the sheet you should be able to enlarge the image to it's original size
https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...et%201A-1B.jpg

Here's the second sheet also used on two sets of fronts
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...0Sheet%20A.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...s/2B%20new.jpg[/IMG]
The Wagner strip matches up exactly to one of the fronts
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...er%20strip.jpg[/IMG]

Back of sheet 2
https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ts/C-D%201.jpg

Sheet number 3 one set of fronts
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...%203%20_2_.jpg[/IMG]

Cicotte an Seymour are next to each other on this sheet and there is also a front print flaw that links them together
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...mour%20_5_.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...Copy%20_2_.jpg[/IMG]

Back of sheet 3
https://photos.imageevent.com/patric.../Sheet%203.jpg

Sheet number 4
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...0Sheet%204.jpg[/IMG]

Back of sheet 4
https://photos.imageevent.com/patric.../Sheet%20G.jpg

wolf441 04-13-2022 12:42 PM
Hi Pat,

Great work as always!

In regards to the second sheet, with the Honus Wagner on the proof sheet lining up to the first "?", is there any chance that the 2nd "?" spot could be the Eddie Plank? It's a portrait, which goes along with the rest of the cards. Also, didn't the old story of the broken printing plate mention something about Plank being at the end (corner?) of a sheet?

Pat R 04-13-2022 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf441 (Post 2214967)
Hi Pat,

Great work as always!

In regards to the second sheet, with the Honus Wagner on the proof sheet lining up to the first "?", is there any chance that the 2nd "?" spot could be the Eddie Plank? It's a portrait, which goes along with the rest of the cards. Also, didn't the old story of the broken printing plate mention something about Plank being at the end (corner?) of a sheet?
Hi Steve, It's not Plank, Plank does have a plate scratch but it doesn't match up to any of the plate scratch sheets.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ank%201a_1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...a%20back_1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ank%201b_1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...b%20Back_1.jpg[/IMG]

That is one of the spots that I'm still searching for a plate scratch for. I think it might be Doc White that should have that plate scratch but it could be another subject. Doc White was definitely on that sheet but I haven't found a plate scratch on any yet.

JollyElm 04-13-2022 01:01 PM
I have more of a general question (about something specific).

In the first image of post #331, the red column (third from right) sticks out like a hugely sore thumb. How certain are you of that placement? All of the colors on the various sheets shown in that post are pretty consistent and balanced with the other cards...except for that red column, which would have fit in more perfectly with all of the red cards on the Young/Waddell/Cobb sheet. If the positioning is correct, do you imagine it was just a weird anomaly when they laid out the sheet? Is there any possibility in your mind that the column is misplaced?

Thanks.

Pat R 04-13-2022 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 2214976)
I have more of a general question (about something specific).

In the first image of post #331, the red column (third from right) sticks out like a hugely sore thumb. How certain are you of that placement? All of the colors on the various sheets shown in that post are pretty consistent and balanced with the other cards...except for that red column, which would have fit in more perfectly with all of the red cards on the Young/Waddell/Cobb sheet. If the positioning is correct, do you imagine it was just a weird anomaly when they laid out the sheet? Is there any possibility in your mind that the column is misplaced?

Thanks.
If it's Criger that you're talking about Darren I'm pretty certain of the placement.

There is more than one scratch on that sheet but I just posted the main scratch, there's actually two more partial scratches on that sheet.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...%20updated.jpg[/IMG]

The area I circled is another scratch that puts Criger next to Hahn here's that plate scratch pairing I just scanned them by lining up the scratches to scan the fronts and they line up perfectly by doing that.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ets/img731.jpg[/IMG]

And here's the backs

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...ets/img733.jpg[/IMG]

steve B 04-14-2022 11:19 AM
It's also possible the short scratch is duplicated columns. The left end seems to line up pretty well with the right end of the longer one.

Now wouldn't that complicate things.

I have to say I'm very happy how things have worked out. Pat has done the bulk of the heavy lifting. At one point I thought I'd gotten pretty far, with my little jigsaw puzzles where I drew in the scratches and lined them up.
Then Pat sent me scans of something like double the amount I'd found to that point. That he's included stuff where a back flaw and front flaw match consistently is a big bonus.

I'm not sure we'll ever get to knowing the size of any sheet, but having things taken so far is cause for hope.

In stamps, it's called "plating" where through study we can know exactly where on what sheet a stamp was. It usually takes decades to really get it down, and even the heavily studied ones still have new discoveries made nearly 100 years after the first published results. And that's with the sheet size being known
To have an approximate size and layout without knowing the sheet size is some amazing work. Probably one of the best I've seen in any of my hobbies.

Pat R 04-14-2022 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B;2215272[[B
B]]It's also possible the short scratch is duplicated columns. The left end seems to line up pretty well with the right end of the longer one.
[/B]
Now wouldn't that complicate things. [/B]

I have to say I'm very happy how things have worked out. Pat has done the bulk of the heavy lifting. At one point I thought I'd gotten pretty far, with my little jigsaw puzzles where I drew in the scratches and lined them up.
Then Pat sent me scans of something like double the amount I'd found to that point. That he's included stuff where a back flaw and front flaw match consistently is a big bonus.

I'm not sure we'll ever get to knowing the size of any sheet, but having things taken so far is cause for hope.

In stamps, it's called "plating" where through study we can know exactly where on what sheet a stamp was. It usually takes decades to really get it down, and even the heavily studied ones still have new discoveries made nearly 100 years after the first published results. And that's with the sheet size being known
To have an approximate size and layout without knowing the sheet size is some amazing work. Probably one of the best I've seen in any of my hobbies.

You have mentioned this before Steve, I don't think it does but I could be wrong. When you have time to work on it let me know and I will send you large scans of all the scratches from that sheet.

I have a card coming that I thought would be here today that could tell us the absolute minimum size of sheet 2 A/B if my thinking is correct.

Brian Weisner 04-14-2022 01:48 PM
Hey Pat,
I was scanning some cards last night and noticed a possible scratch mark…

https://photos.imageevent.com/cardsa...ge%20_400_.jpg
https://photos.imageevent.com/cardsa...ge%20_401_.jpg


Let me know what you think.

Be well Brian

Pat R 04-14-2022 03:50 PM
Hey Brian,

I have seen a few PD350's with partial scratches like that but nothing like the 150's. I haven't found enough to even put a pair of subjects together with
any of the 350 marks.

Pat R 04-15-2022 12:27 PM
Okay the card I was waiting for came today and it refers to sheet #2
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...0Sheet%20A.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...e/2B%20new.jpg[/IMG]


8 years ago Steve A posted in this thread about a Doc White with an upside down back

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_a (Post 1417473)
Below is (not mine) an upside down Doc White. Since it is upside down the back should be from a column equal columns from the center. For instance, given columns ABCD a typical A back would be a D when upside down. If we can match this back to a right-side-up player we have another data point on sheet width. If both players can be linked by a multi-column horizontal scratch that terminates in a side crop then I think algebra would give us the sheet width. Not a lot to work with here but I think there is scratch between "u" in Subjects and "Pi" in Piedmont. Add in a few stray distinctive marks and someone might recognize it.
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...hsheets/09.jpg[/IMG]

Besides the partial scratch mark on the main back there was another print mark on the second back


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1417528)
Erick, I think Steve is referring to the short mark I circled in red but you
had it in hand and got a better look at it than what can be seen in the
small scans.
When you originally posted scans of this card I was looking at trying to
find a PD 150 subject with the mark I circled in black, it looks like it's
some kind of print mark.
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...hsheets/12.jpg[/IMG]

Steve eventually found a Doyle that matched the main upside down Doc White back


Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_a (Post 1424859)
I can confirm that upside down White & Doyle have matching backs. It might not be super clear in the scans but I have both in hand and they match. This means that these two cards are in opposite positions, equal rows and columns from the center, sides, top/bottom, horizontal axis, etc. If we can link either of these two to a center/side/each-other via scratch we could make a lot of progress quickly. I look forward to seeing any scratches, neighbors, two-namers, etc that you have. Another piece in the sheet-size puzzle...
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...hsheets/13.jpg[/IMG]





Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R (Post 1425050)
Nice work Steve,

Doyle is on one of the sheets that has two different subjects with identical scratches indicating the back plates were used on two different fronts.

Stone is a match for Doyle and I think the sheet with Stone on it would
have been the one that White was on because Doyle is a 150 only subject
and White isn't, so we should eventually find a Stone with the same partial
scratch that Doyle and the upside down White have.
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...01b%20Back.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...2%20Back_1.jpg[/IMG]


http://photos.imageevent.com/patrick...et%20C-D_1.jpg

I eventually found a Doyle with the same mark as the partial second back on Doc White
[QUOTE=Pat R;1785697]Almost three years ago Steve pointed out in this thread that the upside
down back of White matched up with a Doyle back.

At the time I searched and couldn't find a Doyle or Stone (Doyle and
Stone share the same position on a plate scratch sheet) that had a print
flaw that is on the smaller portion of the second back on the upside down
White.

This Doyle that sold on ebay recently has that mark.
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...hsheets/14.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...hsheets/15.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...hsheets/16.jpg[/IMG]
So far Doc White hasn't been found with a plate scratch but if
one is eventually found it should allow us to figure out the exact
size of this plate scratch sheet based off the upside down White.

After several years of searching I finally found a George Stone with this mark
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...hsheets/17.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...hsheets/18.jpg[/IMG]


It would be great to find a Doc White with a plate scratch then we would know for sure the exact number of horizontal subjects on this sheet but I think we can now say it's pretty likely that it's a minimum of 20 subjects wide.

The plate scratches show that this back plate was used for two front sheets, every position has two subjects with the same scratch

http://[IMG]https://photos.imageeven...201%20Back.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...1%20Back_1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...g%20Back_1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...y%20Back_1.jpg[/IMG]

There are only two positions with an undiscovered scratch, the matching scratches for Reulbach and G. Brown If Doc white is the missing scratch for Reulbach that would mean the sheet was 20 subjects wide
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...Copy%20_2_.jpg[/IMG]

If he is the missing scratch for George Brown the sheet would be 22 subjects wide.
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...20-%20Copy.jpg[/IMG]

It's also possible that like some of the plate scratch sheets the scratch on this one didn't go all the way across the sheet and Doc White is in another position which would make the sheet larger than 22 subjects wide.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:28 AM.
Page 5 of 5 « First 34 5
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page