Print Group 1 timeline, and Ball, Brown, and Lundgren
 

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere in the forum, and I did search, but couldn't find it, so my apologies in advance if this is the case.

I'm a bit confused about the timeline of production with Print Group 1, particularly as it pertains to Neal Ball.

As I understand it, the original 150 series of cards, began production in May 1909. This started with Piedmont and SC, which then included Sovereign (which is used as a baseline for the original 150, with corrections made), and later Hindu, which expanded the 150 series to include Southern Leaguers.

During this early stage, two players were traded. Neal Ball went from New York to Cleveland on 5/8/1909 and George Brown went from Chicago to Washington on 5/21/1909. However, both are included in the "updated" Sovereign 150 run with their original teams. This in and of itself seems a bit odd, but without knowing the exact time frame of the Sovereign 150 release, I suppose it is possible that there is an overlap in time frame which can explain this. Then there is Carl Lundgren, who was released by Chicago in May 1909, but managed to be excluded from the Sovereign 150 set, yet manages to be in the Piedmont 350 set. Doesn't seem to add up.

In addition, Neal Ball is not seen in a Cleveland uniform until the 460 series is produced, BUT is included in a NY uniform in the later PG1 runs of Piedmont 350, SC350, EPDG, and Old Mill, but not in the earlier produced Hindu set. Again, doesn't seem to add up. However, Brown in a Chicago uniform is seen in the Hindu set during the 150 series, but included in none of the 350 series (which seems right). Lundgren manages to get updated for the PG2 run, and both variations are in the Piedmont 350 set, which I find to also be confusing,since I would think based on his release date, would limit the 350 run to only the KC variation.

What am I missing? Wouldn't logic suggest that all three of these men wind up in the same sets based upon their team changes happening within weeks of each other, and very early in the 150 series? Neal Ball, more so than Lundgren, confuses me.

I think the answer lies in fairly constant production, and the print groups actually being just a rough framework to give some idea what cards could exist or not. Those print groups were as good as we had when they were new, and still for a nice introductory framework.

Some of the player selection would be based on exactly when a particular subject was printed, and when the art to make the plates from was ready.

Ball was probably ready to go fairly early, and they just didn't bother to fix the team. It's sometimes a puzzle why some cards get updated and others just don't. Maybe it was just too much work to change his entire uniform to match most of the other Cleveland uniforms?
Brown was a pretty simple change in the caption, so that would have been easier.
Lundgren was changed between 150 and 350, I believe the Chicago 350s were done from leftover sheets.

Steve B

Carl Lundgren's Major League career ended April 23, 1909.

Why he was printed with 350 series backs (PIEDMONT 350 and EPDG) is a mystery.


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...n4versions.jpg

. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...n4versions.jpg


I added my color-error (missing blue ink) of Lundgren to accent this display.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Another strange thing about Carl Lundgren is that he never appeared in a game for Kansas City. He was acquired by Toronto in mid May of 1909 and pitched in four games between May 24 and June 7. Then on July 10 he was reported released to Kansas City, but some sort of dispute arose, which was eventually settled by the National Commission, and he was eventually sent back to Toronto circa mid August, but did not appear for them again that season. The artwork for his KC card must have been completed sometime between mid July and mid August. He was on Toronto's team to start the 1910 season. The saga is covered, though not in much detail, in the contemporary issues of Sporting Life.

Thanks for the replies. I'm still trying to make sense of it. Perhaps it is as simple as having the proper card count for each series, or something similar. Neal Ball is the most baffling of the bunch though. No Hindu, which came earlier, but a part of the later in 1909 350 first releases (oddly, except Sovereign 350), and then not pictured in a Cleveland uni until the late 1910/early 1911 460 series.

Ted Z., Great display!

Slightly off topic, but has any consideration been given to denoting the various 350 releases and 350-1, 350-2, and 350-3, to designate the various print groups associated with each release? I haven't dug into this to test it's feasibility, more just curious if it's been discussed, or if anyone collects say, Piedmont 350/Print Group 2 as a collection?

Hey jimonym, off topic question but who is your avatar?

I'm not sure if this is what you're asking and some of this has probably been discussed before.

Lundgren might be the most interesting print related subject in the set.
His Chicago variation was added late to print group 1 and the K.C.
variation was pulled early from print group 2.

With some of the information we have it looks like there were a few different stages
that the Piedmonts and SC350/30 and possibly SC350/25 were printed in.

There is a group of 16 (18 if you count Demmitt and O'Hara ST. Louis) subjects
that are the only no prints from print group 2 with AB frame, BL 350 and
cycle 350 backs.

Looking at this group it looks like Carolina Brights and EPDG could be part of
the earlier printing for print group 2. It looks like Bobby Byrne might have
replaced Lundgren Kansas City, Rossman might have replaced Demmitt New York
and Cross or Mowrey could have replaced O'Hara New York.

Attachment 291699

Pat,

That's a great spreadsheet, which certainly tells a story. What I am thinking is more along the lines of breaking the Piedmont 350 series into sub-series, each associated with the print groups. Since Piedmont was the flagship brand of ATC, and PD350 is the most common, and as such, assuming it was the first to be released (priority 1), breaking it into subgroups would bring the timeline of which cards were printed in what order into a bit more fine focus.

Group 2 for instance, has a ton of various backs. However, not all of PG2 cards have each of the various backs.

Using Mike Mowrey as an example ... Mowrey was traded in August 1909. Other than Piedmont and SC, he and Lundgren, who was released in May 1909, are in none of the same sets. Lundgren has a Carolina Brights and EPDG back, and Mowrey has neither. Mowrey however, is included in SOV350 an Tolstoi. Now this is oo small a sample size to draw any conclusions, it leads towards CB and EPDG being printed earlier in the PG2/350 series than Sovereign 350 (FG) or Tolstoi.

I believe both the 350s and 150s have at least three different printings for many cards. Our current collective understanding is complex, but I think the actuality is well beyond that.

T212 Williams