Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
My comments in blue
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".
|
Steve
Scot Reader in his book "Inside T206" estimated 10 Million T206's were produced between 1909 to the Spring of 1911. I think that number is pretty well in the "ball park".
I'll start with my Exclusive 12 example of a simulated sheet of 96 cards. For simplicity of numbers, I will round off this figure to a 100-card sheet. So, let's do the math.....
10,000,000 / 100 card sheet = 100K sheets
Spring 1909 >> Spring 1911 = 400 working days x 24 hours (3 shifts) = 9.6K hours
100K sheets / 9.6K hours = 10.4 sheets production per hour
I am sure that American Lithographic ran several 19" lithographic presses simultaneously in this operation. And, allowing for intervals of the 6-color process to dry, would
result in a rate of printing several T206 sheets per day per press. Therefore, production of 10 Million T206 cards over a period of 24 months was very workable.
....
v................................................. ................................. 19" wide x 24" long sheet .................................................. .................................v
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
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
I truly appreciate these kind words of your's. As you know, I'm an Electronics Engineer, and I have to see mathematical congruence in these studies. And, the factor of
12
is replete within the various series that make up the T206 structure. Alternative proposed printing formats suggested by others on this forum fail to mathematically map in
to the T206 structure.
Furthermore, the
12 factor also fits into certain structures of the T205's. Example....the 12 subjects in the Minor League group. My T205 study is still a work in progress.
TED Z
.