I believe that I have a card which may debunk some of this, or at least adds some level of confusion to what you are trying to unravel.

It has scratches that cross each other or don't go in the direction of the ones that are in the image.

I can't remember the player. I would need to look.

Also, how can you be sure that a given card belongs in the position you have it in when the line on the card cuts through another card in the same spot?

Without seeing the card I can't be sure but you might be talking about one
from another plate scratch sheet. There are four that have scratches that
cross each other from different directions on three different sheets.

There is a Seymour on this sheet
Attachment 259147
Attachment 259149

A Doyle and Stone on this sheet
Attachment 259150Attachment 259151
Attachment 259154

And a Cobb on this sheet
Attachment 259152
Attachment 259153

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to with your other question but the back of the sheet in this
thread was used for two different fronts so there are two subjects with the same scratch for each position.

Yes. I am referring ones that you have shown.

I still see room for some of them to be transposed with other positions, but admittedly haven't studied everything THAT hard to take an opposing view.

There are similar scratches in different positions but they don't work if you try to rearrange them. Some of the closest matches are Weimer/Pastorius with Powell/Goode and Criger/Davis,H. with Hinchman/Sheckard. I Have most of these cards in hand and I've experimented with them in different positions before I established this layout.
Attachment 259265
Attachment 259258Attachment 259259
Attachment 259260Attachment 259261

There is also a miscut SC150 Sheckard that shows part of Wilbur Goode.
Attachment 259262

I just picked up a new previously unconfirmed Weimer scratch that fits
the pattern of one of the three rows of scratches on this sheet.
The scratches from this row are difficult to spot because this scratch
is consistently much lighter than the other two.
Attachment 273511
Attachment 273512
Attachment 273513

Nice work here, Pat.

Some of the cards in your image don't have any marks on them. How are you determining that those players go in those spots? Assuming miss cut cards and double names?

Also, your analysis would mean that they printed 2 piedmont 150 sheets of 4 rows of 17 and 1 sheet with a 9th row of 20.

What is the theory on the remaining cards? 17 plus the 3 wonders(Magie, Plank and Wagner)?

Hi Phillip, I think understand your questions but I'm not sure about your first question. If you're talking about the X's on the sheet I add them to the sheet when I find a new scratch (like the recent Weimer).
I made this sheet by connecting existing scratches to give me an idea on location and subjects for unconfirmed scratches. If there is no X then that scratch is currently unconfirmed.
There are two subjects for each scratch one is a SC649 subject and the other a non 649 subject the Red are the 649's and the Blue are non 649 subjects that are confirmed.

For example there should be a Pastorius scratch that matches this new weimer
and next to that scratch there is an unconfirmed scratch that should be found on Criger and H. Davis (circled on the image below).
Attachment 274161
I think I might be confusing some people with the three different scratches.
The vertical location of these scratches are just for my research I don't know where they were on the sheet and the middle one is short because I haven't
found any scratches on the right side to connect to yet.

If in your first question your referring to the areas with no scratches there are other plate scratch sheets that indicate at least 12 vertical rows with the same subject, this is just my opinion but I think all of the plate scratch sheets had the same vertical subject for the whole sheet.


As far as the sheet size and Magie, Plank and Wagner. There were a few
different printings for the PD150 sheets and several changes were made so the number isn't actually 156 for the sheets. Magie was changed to Magee
so that would only count as one. There are a few PD150 Plank's and Wagner's but they are scraps. Crawford (throwing) was a late addition and Lundgren (Chicago) and Jennings (Portrait) were later additions.

Personally I think there were a few different size sheets although I do think
all of the PD150 sheets with the scratches were printed close to the same time and were probably the same size.

Because of the amount of T206's that were printed I also think it's reasonable to consider that there were sheets
printed at some of the other facility's owned by American Lithograph at the time not just their original NY facility.
Attachment 274150
Attachment 274157
Attachment 274158

Nice work Pat.

I've been looking at Magies, and there are some flawed backs that I'm fairly sure don't appear with any other front, even the Magees.

I need to write it up eventually, but I also think there were at least three different printings of most fronts in the 150 series. With the less common cards being printed only once and not necessarily on the same sheet.

I'm still thinking the 8 from the middle fit to the right of the sheet layout. But being sure of that would require matching a so far unconfirmed weimer/pastorious with the O'Leary.

I've also thought that more than one printing plant may have been involved. Nothing really solid to base it on, but a hunch based on the number issued and the other sets that share some of the pictures. The orange borders were produced here in Lowell, and share a few pictures. The company specialized in novelty candy boxes. One day I want to get to the local historical society and see if they have any info on the company which as far as I can tell moved to Lowell from Boston around 1910 and went out of business shortly after that.

Steve B

Thanks Steve, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the middle scratch is a
third horizontal scratch on this sheet. There are two subjects (Conroy and Williams) with three different horizontal scratches. I Just realized that I didn't
update the sheet to include the third Conroy.

Here's the updated sheet
Attachment 274290

Here are the 3 Conroy's
Attachment 274284
Attachment 274285
Attachment 274286

and the 3 William's
Attachment 274287
Attachment 274288
Attachment 274289

I found a new scratch in the row of the upper scratch on my template. It's
a Criger in the Criger/Davis slot.
Attachment 287275
Attachment 287276Attachment 287277

It's a slow process because these are difficult to find. For example
all of these scratches are harder to find than a Mur'ay, nodgrass "error" ect...
and Criger/Davis is a good example to explain why.

They call them errors but they're not, it was caused by something that interfered with a letter in one of the positions for that subject on the sheet.

There is a Davis that is missing a letter like the "errors" that have been
catalogued. It's missing part of the R in AMER so it looks like AMEP.
Attachment 287278

This Davis also happens to be one of the plate scratches.
Attachment 287279
Attachment 287280

Davis and Criger occupy the same positions on this sheet.
Here is the Criger with the same scratch as the Davis "AMEP".
Attachment 287281Attachment 287282

So to start with there is the difficulty of finding these at about the same rate
as the "error" cards and there are a few other things to factor in. The
scans have to be good enough to show the sratches and the ink in the
area of the scratch has to be dark enough.

It also has to be a Piedmont 150 back, most of the "error" cards are found
on other backs with the exception of Dopner which has only been found on a
Polar Bear back so far. I don't think a Dopner will be found any other back
because in my opinion the Polar Bears were printed separate from all the other backs.

Here are a couple of Davis Amep's with a SC150/649 back.
Attachment 287283
Attachment 287287Attachment 287285

Here is a high resolution scan of the Davis "Amep" and Criger scratch. The top one is Davis and the bottom one is Criger.
Attachment 287288
Attachment 287289

Quite a few collectors say the hunt is the most fun and it is for me too.
I get a lot of enjoyment out of searching for and finding these.

Great research, Pat!! I remember doing some minutia collecting in my type card days.

I'm bumping this thread for two cards that relate to this sheet that I feel very fortunate to find and even better to have had the opportunity to purchase them.

The cards are these two specific Conroy and Williams cards.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...Copy%20_3_.jpg[/IMG]

I already have most of the plate scratches on this sheet including these two cards.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...aks/img706.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...aks/img707.jpg[/IMG]

What's exciting about the new pair is I have very little doubt that they were on the same specific sheet together.

They have identical off center left to right and top to bottom miscuts

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...rge/img704.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...rge/img705.jpg[/IMG]

I usually remove all of my plate scratches from the holders but I think it's cool that they have consecutive cert numbers and these two specific cards were printed next to each other 114 years ago.

They even have identical defects that i circled from a chip in the cutting blade.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...Copy%20_2_.jpg[/IMG]

Wow Pat. That’s incredible. Separated at birth and reunited over 110 years later. So cool. Thank you for sharing.

My stars, this is amazing.

wow wow wow

incredible stuff, Pat

T206
 

Amazing labor of love. Well done, Pat! Trent King

Sonny, Kevin, James, and Trent, thank you.

With the image size restrictions I was never able to post a large enough image of the full sheet that would show all the scratches and how they line up.

This is an image I made from the actual scratches that I have.

Apologies in advance for the huge image.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...Copy%20_3_.jpg[/IMG]

This whole thread is just incredibly cool. Love the incredible minutiae and ability to pick up a good chunk of these cards.

Major props on this entire endeavor.

Thank you CJ. I'm going to post scans of all of the pairs from the primary scratch in this thread.

Starting from left to right on the back here's Griffith and Turner

Attachment 584730

Pastorius and Weimer

Attachment 584734

Attachment 584735

Attachment 584736

Davis and Criger

Attachment 584737

Attachment 584738

Attachment 584739

..

Wilhelm and Hahn

Attachment 584743

Attachment 584744

Attachment 584745

Hey Pat,
Thanks for completing such an amazing task. I was hopeful that the plate scratch’s would give us a better glimpse of the T206 printing process and might possibly lead to building possible sheet combos. I never imagined it would lead to at least one full sheet and partials of several more….

This is by far my favorite thread since this board started…..


Congrats…..

Be well Brian 🍻

Thank you Brian, I appreciate the compliment.

George Davis and Murphy

Attachment 585256

Attachment 585257

Attachment 585258

Bransfield and Conroy

Attachment 585261

Attachment 585262

Attachment 585263

Lake and Williams

Attachment 585326

Attachment 585327

Attachment 585328

McIntyre and Stahl

Attachment 585329

Attachment 585330

Attachment 585331

Goode and Powell

Attachment 585486

Attachment 585487

Attachment 585488

Sheckard and Hinchman

Attachment 585627

Attachment 585628

Attachment 585629

Manning and Bergen

Attachment 585712

Attachment 585713

Attachment 585714

Powers and Shaw

Attachment 585757

Attachment 585758

Attachment 585759

Liebhardt and Konetchy

Attachment 585867

Attachment 585868

Attachment 585869


The scratch on the Liebhardt that I have is faint I need to pick up one with a bolder scratch, here's an image of one with a bolder scratch.

Attachment 585870

Clarke and Ganley

Attachment 586009

Attachment 586010

Attachment 586011

Bresnahan and Gibson

Attachment 586057

I thought that I had the Bresnahan scratch but after searching for it I discovered that I don't have one so I'm substituting an image that I have of it.

Of the 34 scratches on the primary scratch from this sheet I have at least one copy for 31 0f the 34 scratches. I'm lacking Bresnahan and Johnson and I've yet to find a match for the O'Leary scratch.

Attachment 586058
Attachment 586059

Re: sheet layout
 

Truly remarkable work, Pat. Curious about the Liebhardt a few posts up. The massive top border would seem to suggest that it was at the top of the sheet. Why is there no evidence of the bottom caption from the card above it?

Thank you Ed and good observation. I was actually going to post about that when I got into the three other scratches on this sheet besides the primary scratch.

I think that I'm probably confusing some people with the template I've been posting of this plate scratch sheet. There are a few other separate plate scratch sheets besides this one. When I started working on these I made templates by printing out the Piedmont backs on 8 1/2 x 11 paper and taping 4 of them together so they were 34 inches wide and some of them were over 40 inches high. After I already started this sheet I discovered some of the secondary scratches on this sheet I just drew them in above the primary scratch which was already on the bottom of the template (because of the direction of the scratch) rather than going through the trouble of making a new template. So the other scratches would have actually been somewhere on this sheet below the primary scratch instead of above it as it is on this template.


Besides the Liebhardt I have other scratches that show that the primary scratch from Shaw to O'Leary was at the top of the sheet and everything from the left of Shaw was in the second row down on the sheet.

Attachment 586104

Shaw and O'leary scratches with big top borders without part of the caption at the top

Attachment 586098
Attachment 586099


These are all to the left of Shaw and the names at the top would have been from the top row on the sheet

Attachment 586100
Attachment 586101
Attachment 586102

Re: sheet layout
 

Thank you for the explanation, Pat.

Johnson and Stovall

Attachment 586235

Attachment 586236

Attachment 586237

O'leary

Attachment 586245

Attachment 586246

I just recently found a new scratch from one of the secondary scratches that closes up a gap in the confirmed scratches for 5 subjects on this particular scratch (same 5 subjects in order as the primary scratch)

Attachment 586703

Attachment 586704

You can see why the secondary scratches are far more difficult to find than the primary scratches.

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

I still think that secondary scratch goes to the right of the upper primary scratch with either a gap in between or a card that hasn't been found yet.

I think we discussed this a couple of times Steve and I still respectfully disagree. If what you are saying is true while these T206 sheets were bigger than most people think
this sheet would have had to have been massive somewhere around 30- 40 cards wide with a section of the sheet layout triple printed on the right hand side.

There are three different horizontal scratches (plus at least one vertical scratch on a few subjects).

Here are the three different Conroy-Williams horizontal scratch pairings

Attachment 586758

Attachment 586759
Attachment 586760

Attachment 586763
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...aks/img811.jpg[/IMG]

Attachment 586764
[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...aks/img817.jpg[/IMG]

I think you have two brains stuffed in you head Patrick. :D

That is some of the best T206 research I have seen. Right up there with Cathey figuring out the Print Groups.

JR

That's the fun of it Pat. That there's room for alternate ideas and we can discuss them and disagree.

I do think that the larger sheet idea is a fading one.
Originally using Scot Rs ideas on production numbers and the sheets/hr rate of 1910 presses, I thought a much larger sheet was most likely (after a brief flirtaton with the idea of a much smaller sheet with only 12 subjects, now almost certainly wrong)

But the scratches have paid off wonderfully. something I'll make a second reply about.
The things that would prove a gap between sheets are incredibly unlikely to turn up. Horizontal miscuts with a big left or right margin, an uncut fragment with that gap. Not happening.
A card that fits that gap? Should have turned up by now. It's absence is probably the most convincing argument against.

And the possibility of multiple printers makes the math requiring near constant production OR a very large sheet not work so well.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

What Pat has accomplished with the scratches is probably not just one of the best bits of research on T206s, but possibly the best in almost any hobby.

In stamps, it's called plating. Figuring out the minute differences that let you know for sure not only what plate a stamp is from, but exactly where on the sheet it was. The guys who are famous for it worked mostly in the 1930s-50's
When the ones it was most possible or interesting for were readily available in large quantities for not much money. Like boxes of thousands.....
It took them decades to mostly plate a few stamps from the 1850's One has a known plate that still isn't totally plated.

And that's with a known sheet size, and plenty of blocks of multiple stamps available to study, some with the plate number on them.

Pat has mostly assembled two different sheets without blocks, without a known sheet size, and with minimal collaboration*. The vertical scratches on the other sheet have gone a long way towards knowing how many cards tall the sheets were.
There are still things to be figured out, but this much advancement in such a short time is amazing.

*I was saving scans and when we first compared notes I had only about half of what Pat had found. I stopped saving scans after that unless something was unusual.

Amazing project Pat, your dedication to this is inspiring and it is really coming together.

I have tried to map out these sheets for years and could never put together enough information, as well some of the info leads me to think that maybe the sheet configurations changed over a print run/different back.

Any information from the OAK underprints that can be gathered? The seven that I am aware of are all from your scratch list. Davis, Ewing, Griffith, Lake, Manning, O'Leary & Powers.

Thank you Chris.

We know for sure that the sheet configurations changed and/or were different. I say different because I think there's a good possibility that there were sheets being printed in more than one location at the same time and each facility might have had a different sheet configuration. There are many oddities in the set that this would be the most logical explanation for. I think at the tail end when the printing of the T206's was winding down most or all of it may have been done by one of the smaller facility's. The only evidence I know of where there are different print groups together on the same sheet is the test print scrap that shows Marquard pitching, Seymour portrait, and Schaefer Washington who are 460 0nly subjects on a sheet with a group of 350-460 subjects. This is one of several reasons why I think the Coupon type 1's were printed after the T206 printings with their odd mix of Southern leaguers and 350 only major league subjects together but no 350 only minor league subjects.

Attachment 586981


All of the known Oak underprints are on this sheet except Ewing. Ewing is one of the subjects with no confirmed scratches the rest are all on this sheet. Ewing is an opposite factory 649 sheet match for Bransfield who is on this sheet (post #47 in this thread)

Attachment 586974

The evidence shows that this plate scratch layout was used on one of the SC150/649 sheets. A few years ago using that information I was attempting to
figure out the layout of the other 649 sheet by matching up print flaws of the 649 subjects on this sheet like the Bransfield/Ewing in the above post.

I only worked on that for a brief period because I was still working on all of the other PD150 plate scratch sheets.

Here's what I have on the other 649 sheet so far

Attachment 587193


Yesterday I came across this JJ Clarke SC150/25 with a print flaw
Attachment 587195

My first thought was when I saw was I wonder if there is a Ganley with the same mark being that he is a plate scratch match for Clarke and just a few Ganley's in my search I found this one
Attachment 587196

So now I know this plate scratch layout was used on some of the SC150/25 sheets and it's possible it was used on some of the other sheets like the Sovereign 150's and SC150/30's which would present more possible cross references using print flaws to figure out the rest of the 2nd 649 sheet and possibly others.