Quote:
Originally Posted by tedzan
Hi Ed
You and I have had some interesting discussions regarding E90-1 cards these past 10 years . Glad to hear you still have your set.
I put this 120-card set together in the mid-1990's. In recent years, when the price of the Joe Jax went "bananas", I broke up this
set and sold 77 % of it. Shown below are 10 of the 28 cards I kept.
Anyhow, none of these 28 cards have any of the so-called "plate scratches" on their backs. Not even the slightest trace of any "ink
streaks".
Furthermore, I compared notes with a fellow E90-1 collector nearby in Pennsylvania, who has a complete 120-card set (and approx.
60 dupes). And the only cards in his collection with "ink streaks" are Demmitt, Joss (portrait), Overall, Phelps, Stone (left arm), Jeff
Sweeney & Roy Thomas. Also, he has an extra Joss (portrait) and Jeff Sweeney which do NOT have "ink streaks". Total = 208 cards.
This results to only 3.3 % of this particular 208-card sample with this printing anomaly. In the past 25 years, I have seen many E90
cards, that I would venture to say a larger sample of these cards will yield even a lower percentage. Therefore, can we really rely on
such inconsistencies in attempting to determine a valid sheet layout ?
I don't think so.
Incidentally, Ed......your sample percentage (4/125 = 3.2 %) coincides with the sample percentage that I noted above (3.3 %).
TED Z
.
|
Hi Ted,
I know your post is directed at Ed but I would like to respond too.
No offense but I don't think you understand the plate scratches. I would be happy to bring some plate scratch cards and meet with you sometime in
the future and have a discussion.
I'm not sure how they occurred but I think it probably happened in the moving
of them in the printing process.
Some of the stones were very large and I have seen pictures from around
that time period where they were stored on racks similar to this.
1 Litography_archive_of_the_Bayerisches_Vermessungsamt.jpg
1 sl-374.jpg
I'm sure a large number of sheets were printed before the scratches occurred
and only a small number would have the scratches on them. Using this test
sheet I made you can see only 25% of the cards have a scratch (9 out of 36).
1 E90-1 test sheet.jpg
So combining this with the number of sheets that were printed before the scratch occurred would result in a low % although I think 3.3% is too low
of an estimate.
I think describing them as inconsistent is incorrect. The great thing about
them is they are very consistent. A scratch on a subject from a particular
sheet position is always in the same place.
Here's multiple examples of a Seymour scratch.
Seymour 1 Group Back.jpg
Seymour 1 Group.jpg
There are two on ebay right now with that same exact scratch.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...cAAOSw3KFWchuH
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...4AAOSwnGJWSo7F
That Seymour scratch is on this sheet.
1 Sheet%20F-B[2].jpg
Here's the Seymour under that one.
Seymour 2.jpg
Seymour 1-Seymour 2.jpg
Cicotte is next to Seymour on that sheet and Here's some of them.
This Cicottte lines up with the Seymour's I posted above.
Cicotte 1.jpg
Cicotte 1-seymour.jpg
This pair
Cicotte 4.jpg
Seymour 2.jpg
Cicotte 4 -seymour 2.jpg
And another pairing
Cicotte 5.jpg
Seymour 6.jpg
Cicotte 5-Seymour 6.jpg
And there's also a front mark that shows Cicotte and Seymour were next to each other on this sheet.
1 Seymour%20_5_ - Copy.jpg
1 Seymour [5] - Copy - Copy.jpg