Net54baseball.com Forums - T206 Production

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)

- - T206 Production (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=83642)

Posted By: David HornishAll right-I figured this would get buried in the Plank thread. I have long wondered how the T206 sheets were produced. Were the fronts and backs printed at a central location or were the fronts shipped blankbacked to each factory for printing of the reverse? I have not read too much about this aspect and most monographs/articles tend to gloss it over. I probably need to find a good source for how cigarette packaging was done a century ago but failing a trip to Duke University I figured I would ask here. I have always assumed the backs were printed at the local factory on the basis they would also be printing the cigarette packs themselves locally but I have to confess I don't know how the packs were created. Then there is the problem of cutting and inserting the cards in the packs. Or do I have it worng. Is the factory on the reverse merely where the tobacco was cured and shredded? I assume the ATT facilities throughout the country were located on rail lines so trsnportation of either large quantities of tobacco or sheets of cards would not have been a problem. The wonderful INSIDE T206 monograph indicates some cards have been seen with multiple printed backs, which lends credence (possibly) to the printing being done in once central location. Heitman's pamphlet is essentially silent and Lipset really doesn't address this either. I'll tell you-figuring out this stuff is just as much fun as collecting the cards! Dave

Posted By: Frank WakefieldHey Dave, I agree. They were either made together, or out separately at each factory. Since there are cards with different factory backs overprinted on the same card then one consolidated printing makes sense. I once thoght that all of the fronts could have been printed one place, and the backs at the separate factories. But the overprinted backs makes that unlikely. Besides, if the cards were printed different places I think we could tell slight differences in the card fronts. They seem too uniform for that. So I vote one printer for the entire process. I wonder if the cigarette boxes were printed on site, which is what I think did not happen, or if they were printed elsewhere. I figure cigarette making is much different than paper and cardboard making, printing, and processing. Coca Cola doesn't make their cartons. Lexmark doesn't make their boxes. It just seems that paper goods were outsourced. Frank.

Posted By: fkwThis "classic" (owned by hoofaway) proves they were all (most likely) printed at same location. <img src="http://members.aol.com/canofprimo/t206mystery.jpg"><img src="http://members.aol.com/canofprimo/t206mystery2.jpg">

Posted By: Frank WakefieldAnd don't you reckon that if one is like that, others were printed the very same way??? Frank.

Posted By: Judson HamlinIt would seem to make sense that the Amer. Lithographic Co. would print all the cards at their facility, probably in one location, and then bulk ship the cards out to the ATC trust for them to distribute to their factories to be hand-insterted in the packs. The multi overprint that is shown in this thread seems to fit in with this model. It wouldn't make much sense for AL to print the sheets and then entrust their customer with the cutting of the sheets into cards. It doesn't seemlikely that the ATC would have the machinery on site to perform that kind of work. While they would have cutting machinery on-site, it seems improbable that they would repurpose (sorry, Dilbertesque word) a line to cut cards that would cut the cigs or create the wrapping for the packs. edited to include the second paragraph.

Posted By: Scot ReaderHi Dave, As the author of the aforementioned T206 monograph, I can say that I never gave the question much thought. Since, I have been more persuaded by the proponents of the theory that the cards were printed front and back at a common location and then distributed. Although, I still grapple with the question of why Demmitt (St. Louis) and O'Hara (St. Louis) were only printed with the Polar Bear back. If the front and back printing were centralized, why would the front artwork have been changed and only printed and distributed with a single back to a single factory (Factory 6, Ohio)? Scot

Posted By: David HornishHi there Scot. The gas smell in Manhattan today freaked out my company and I was home by noon so I just re-read your monograph today for the 4th or 5th time! I have often wondered if there was some interchangeability in how the T206's were made up for the brands. Could a company like Polar Bear request that a couple of cards be substituted? Or did the ATT have 2 or 3 production facilities spread thru the country (I believe Topps used two 3rd party facilities in the 50's and 60's to print their cards so it's not unheard of) allowing some variations to creep in? Or did they offer say 90% of a set group of cards per series and allow for some input from the brands? Any why would they print all the different factory information? Would not just the brand name be enough? Questions, questions.....Well, I seem to be leaning at last toward the central printing theory, don't I?

Posted By: Scot Reader Hi David, I'm flattered that you've read my e-book more than once. Many of us have been stewing over T206 since that manuscript was published and some original ideas have come to fore. See, for example, Ted Zanidakis' theory on "primacy of Piedmont". Also, Jamie Hull and I had a very interesting recent exchange about the Smith and Kleinow variations in the recent thread started by Ted about Broadleaf. And Bill Brown has done some terrific work over the past several months trying to catalog the T206 superset. P.S. I remember reading your fine article on T206 in the OBC webzine. Scot

Posted By: Jim NovotnyBut how does the fact that American Beauty cards (or was it another back)have slightly different dimensions factor into the one site production theory. If those were cut at different dimensions, were those cut at the site?

Posted By: Judson HamlinIt seems likely (and without a history of correspondence, we will never know) that the ATC specified the size of the cards to Amer. Litho. and ordered them cut to that size, which would mean scrapping that few millimeters of border between each column of cards on a sheet. Something a printing co. could do much more eaaily than a cig. factory. edited because I forgot my name in the post