My comments in blue
[QUOTE=tedzan;1404412]Of course American Lithographic operated presses of varying sizes. The large presses listed here were primarily employed for large advertising posters, artworks, murals, etc.
Anyhow, its my understanding that for
small-size, 6-color jobs (i.e., T205's, T206's, T209's, T213's, etc.),
19" presses were optimum for producing higher quality resolution
plus greater product yields.
One of the limits to production is how many sheets could be fed per day. That limit was the same for most presses, both large and small. I've finally seen a hard stat on that and the manually fed presses were limited by the human feeder to 12-15 thousand sheets a day. Unless the individual items were a full sheet, higher yields come from larger sheets. I'd done some math in the past based on Scot Readers estimates of production, and with a 19x24 sheet they wouldn't have enough hours in three years to print all the cards from one press, and even two would have been a stretch. Doubling the size to 38x48 would allow them to produce four times as many cards. Quality would be the same. Most of the large posters of the time have few problems with quality.
And I will remind you, that you were the one who originally informed us that the standard size sheets available (circa 1909-1911) were
19" x 24".
That was one standard size, based on the assumed 19 inch width. And, as you've said running it through narrow end first was bad practice. I'm becoming less convinced that a 19 inch press was used based on calculating how many hours the overall job would take. Halving Scots upper estimate and going with six colors plus the back the time would be a bit over 128 weeks just in running time for a 96 card sheet. I'm not sure how much to add for setup, I cant think that moving the stones was any sort of quick process. So figure two presses being used, which still puts it at probably around two years nonstop. They probably didn't run a 7 day week. About 29% less production, Add two more colors like on many of the cards, and that's another 20%+ reduction. I guess it would have taken four presses that size dedicated to nothing but T206s for the entire time between 1909 and 1911. ALC could have done it, but a job that size would make more sense on a larger press.
Look, I'm not the experienced printer as you are, but I have read a lot about printing practices. And, I don't see T206's having been printed on any of those large size presses
listed here which were limited to a 2-color printing process.
The presses listed here were not limited to a 2 color process. The Hoe #5 and #3 lithographic presses were nearly identical to the one in the pictures I linked to. They could print one color at a time. So even going with the normally accepted 6 colors, plus a back, producing a complete sheet would have taken seven individual runs.
The two color press in the article shown was capable of printing two colors simultaneously And I believe it's somewhat likely a similar press was used for some of the cards.
Either way, we've drifted away from E91s, and missed the point of the 18 card strip which has a left margin, but no right margin. Meaning either the PA printer didn't run with a margin on one side, or it's still not "complete" at 18 cards.
Were they printed as strips? I can't imagine they were. Strips cut from sheets seems more likely.
Were they issued as strips? The back of the card says "one of which is wrapped with every piece of baseball caramel. " Barring some sort of promotion like saving so many wrappers to get a strip or the strips being used as a part of a store display I have to go with what the cards say.
I must say I admire the work you've put into all these sets. Without it there would be a lot more confusion. I do wish there'd be a bit more open mindedness, but if sticking with groups of 12 and 19 inches eliminates confusion for you that's probably best. I'm still on the fence about both, as you've found some very convincing groups that seem to work well. I wish for the same things from the 17 camp, so don't take it as just you. 
Steve B