Yet Another T206 Sheet Size Discussion

[t206hound]

The wife and kids are at the beach giving me way too much free time. I recently picked up another ghost on the BST (thanks!) and this always gets me thinking about sheet layouts, player placements, etc.

There have been two major schools of thought. I've given each a name, not that I think they will stick.

1. The "By The Dozens Theory" is that the sheets were comprised of a multiple of 12 (12, 24 or 36 generally). This has been tedzan's (hi Ted!) thoughts on layouts for quite a while. It's mentioned in this thread. In essence, Ted's thoughts are that there were 12 cards per row.
2. The "Rule of 34 Theory" which postulates that since there are a few issues that have exactly 34 subjects, that the sheets could contain every subject (BL460, Hindu, Old Mill Brown, Sweet Cap 150-649). This is the theory discussed in this forum as well as a related article on T206Resource.com (hi Tim and Jim!). They postulate that there were 17 cards per row.

I've tended to lean towards the 34 theory for many of the same reasons that they point out, plus I've always believed it to be an odd number of cards per row based on the placement of the "big factory number" found at the bottom of some Sweet Caporal cards. The placement of that number is smack dab in the center of the card... why would it be there if there were an even number of cards in the row?

Anyway, those were just gut calls... no fact, math, or science behind it. But after thinking about it today, my current belief is that the "important" number is not 12 nor 34; it's 17. I do believe there were 17 cards per row (as stated in the "Rule of 34") for the non-American Beauty issued cards (another thread on that in the future).

So, we need to look at the issues that are a multiple of 17. And there's no better place to start than at the beginning. We already know that the Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 set is a multiple of 17 (34 cards), but did you know that so is Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 25 and 30. Both contain 153 cards (17 x 9).

The Piedmont 150 set has 156 cards, so the seventeen theory doesn't hold water... or does it. Here are my thoughts... the first one is pretty much given fact, but I am definitely just giving (what I believe to be an educated) guess on the other two.

1. We know that the Magie error was corrected to Magee during a Piedmont run before it ran on Sweet Cap, so that only counts as 1 card on the sheet layout.
2. I postulate that the Sweet Cap 150 run that included Wagner came before the Piedmont 150 run with ol' Honus. I believe that when Wagner was pulled, he was replaced by Jennings... so that only counts as 1 on the sheet layout. It also explains why Jennings isn't on the Sweet Cap cards.
3. I believe the last of the Piedmont 150 runs came before the Sweet Caporal 150 runs. We know that the only Plank P150 cards have been hand cut, so I believe that was either a test run or a very late replacement of Lundgren Chicago (which is why he doesn't appear in the Sweet Cap 150). Regardless, when the Sweet Cap run started, Plank was used (and then used again during a 350 run). So, that only counts as one, too.

So, with the 3 replacements, we are at 153 cards sheet locations... 17 x 9. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by t206hound

I've tended to lean towards the 34 theory for many of the same reasons that they point out, plus I've always believed it to be an odd number of cards based on the placement of the "big factory number" found at the bottom of some Sweet Caporal cards. The placement of that number is smack dab in the center of the card... why would it be there if there were an even number of cards in the row?

I hesitate to post on printing topics, as Steve is really the man when it comes to stuff like this, but...

I agree that it makes sense that the factory number would be printed in the center of the sheet, but that doesn't mean that the cards would be. It could be that the cards were aligned to the left and there was more space on the right;i.e-not enough to print a card. I'm sure Steve can give us more insight.

[Matvoo]

Nice facts and speculation

[mrvster]

your analytical mind is what we need!

makes a lot of sense.....

I like the Plank replacement theory

[t206hound]

Thanks Johnny. I do leave open the possibility that row size other than 17 may have been used for some issues. But this seems to make sense. I am, however, confused by Sovereign 150 (exactly 150 cards). Need to ponder that one some more.

[steve B]

The big sheet number could be anywhere on the lower margin. That they put it centered under a card is interesting, but makes sense if as I think the plates were laid out with transfers. They'd have simply used the guidelines already there to line up the transfer. (Or, they might not have used a transfer for the factory number since there would only be one. )

I've seen some possible evidence that ALC did actually run very tight margins along at least one side of the sheet. A T201 showing the white sheet margin at the left with some indication that what was visible is all there was. (Angled cut leading into straight edges at the left, angled cut the full length on the right. )
Very tight sheet margins are usually bad practice, and it's possible they trimmed off most of the margin before folding/cutting.

I find the 17/34 idea to be workable for some series or parts of series.

But there are interesting exceptions.

There are only around 12-13 150 only cards depending on which versions you count, and whether you discount a handful of outliers like the recently discovered Schulte 350.

the 460 only group is currently at 46 cards, fitting neither scheme.

The southern leaguers have 34 Hindus and 48 with other backs. Fitting both schemes.

The 649 Ops do have 34 subjects, but one of them - Powers - is the only one that does not also come with a 350 back.

Six superprints.



Making it more complicated, looking at the 150 only group graded populations that group breaks down into two fairly well defined subgroups of 6-7 cards. (Brown, Cubs. has about twice as many Graded, which I've found to be in line with the T206 population overall, Hofers and known difficult cards are roughly twice as likely to be graded. )


So I think it's more complex than simply a sheet layout of X by Y.
Each series and back I believe needs to be taken as it's own set. And then it begins to make more sense.

The content of a set could have varied according to the distribution area of the brand. And we've seen this with OM and Hindu as well as the fragment of packing log that stated "other then Philadelphia area"

And we know for sure that at least some subjects were reworked between the 150 and 350 series. (Conroys hat stripes)

Plus, brands like Piedmont would have required far more cards than smaller brands. So a larger sheet- 48 subjects? More? for Piedmont/SC, and a smaller sheet - 17 or 34 subjects for Hindu or BL.


Now add some other stuff.
Like some evidence that both the 150's and 350's were reworked multiple times, and were printed from at least 3 different sets of plates. Maybe some of the 460's as well.

Some faint evidence that the piedmont back plates were reworked or resurfaced at some point. Magies show flaws that I haven't seen on other Piedmont 150's. I may have missed them, but if they're out there they're also very uncommon.
And some faint traces which might be the P150 scratches showing on a P350 reverse. Not unexpected- the resurfacing for reuse didn't remove much, so a bad scratch might not get removed entirely.

Other stuff that's farther afield from what we have evidence for.

The backs, at least Piedmont, were probably printed from stones rather than plates. It's possible the fronts and maybe some of the backs were done from plates, meaning probably different sizes.

The possibility of some being produced on a two color press. Some shifts seem to come in pairs, indicating maybe a 2 color press being used at times.

For Piedmont/SC --- Perhaps a web press, one that prints to a roll of stock rather than sheets. Higher production, and again, probably different size "sheets" potentially without top and bottom margins.

The Hoe company made both multi color and web fed presses at the time, and were close to ALC. So it's likely the equipment was there.


Steve B

[Runscott]

Thanks Steve - always good to see the expert get involved in these discussions.

[t206hound]

Thanks Steve. I absolutely appreciate your input... you gave me great responses to sheet size questions a few months ago and your knowledge on the subject is extremely helpful to me and everyone else on the board.

A few things... and let me further say that I am absolutely guessing on this stuff.

Originally Posted by steve B

There are only around 12-13 150 only cards depending on which versions you count, and whether you discount a handful of outliers like the recently discovered Schulte 350.

I've always been confused how the dozenish 150-only cards had any impact on sheet/row size. To me, these cards just didn't make the cut to the 350 series printings (for various reasons). I would not think that the fact that they didn't make the cut implies that they were all printed together for the 150 series.

Originally Posted by steve B

the 460 only group is currently at 46 cards, fitting neither scheme.

The southern leaguers have 34 Hindus and 48 with other backs. Fitting both schemes.

I also tend to believe that there was not a defacto standard sheet size used for each brand/series. I was just postulating that the number 17 seems to fit nicely into the Piedmont 150 and Sweet Cap 150 issues, along with those other issues that are multiples of 17.

Originally Posted by steve B

The 649 Ops do have 34 subjects, but one of them - Powers - is the only one that does not also come with a 350 back.

Again, he didn't make the cut, but the other 33 did. Not enough of a reason for me to think the cards per row was not 17 for SC150-649.

Originally Posted by steve B

Six superprints.

They made the cut every time! I presume that the sheet layouts were potentially different for each issue. I wouldn't think that simply because these six cards appear in all series that it absolutely indicates that they were on the same sheet in each issue.

Originally Posted by steve B

Making it more complicated, looking at the 150 only group graded populations that group breaks down into two fairly well defined subgroups of 6-7 cards. (Brown, Cubs. has about twice as many Graded, which I've found to be in line with the T206 population overall, Hofers and known difficult cards are roughly twice as likely to be graded. )

The number of cards printed would be more attributed to the number of sheets printed in each setup, than the setup of cards on each sheet. For example, it doesn't matter if there were 12 or 17 per row if I chose to print 500 sheets of setup "A" and 400 sheets of setup "B".

All this stuff REALLY interests me. We may never know... but I have fun hypothesizing and getting feedback. All discussion on this topic is good discussion to me!

[steve B]

Those are all excellent points.

If T206 is taken as one set, one press run, then the 150 onlys matter more. If it's looked at as a group of related sets with multiple press runs then they probably matter less. I'm leaning that way, except........

Of the 13 only two didn't make the cut in any way - Pattee and Wagner.
One continued almost unchanged - Magie became Magee.
Three continued the same pose - Brown(e) Brown, and Evers. Brown(e) only got a team change, the other two were entirely recolored.
All the rest continued with pose changes. but with different patterns in 350 and beyond. Schulte didn't get back until the 460's

So in a way nearly all of them made the cut.
I have to wonder why they didn't simply continue with the same art?

One of the few ideas that makes sense is that the transfers were done in blocks or strips. From original art done in strips. Strips of 6 would make some sense. So maybe early layout with 6, later with some other plan. Perhaps 6/6/5 with Wagner removed? That doesn't quite cover the imbalance in population figures, but an unbalanced arrangement would.


Powers making the cut for 649op but not for 350 makes sense considering his death and unbalanced distribution. They may have sent more to Philly than other places . More indication that there was a fairly large break between 150 and 350. And another puzzle. If the 649 op sheet was 34 subjects, and was made especially for that group (I think it was, especially if it related to regional distribution) Why an overprint and not a 649 back?


The sheet setup could have varied with the size of the order for cards. Between Piedmont and SC, yes it would have been a matter of 500 sheets of one 400 of the other. (Using your small comfortable numbers ) And small orders like BL, Drum, Uzit, etc they probably did only use what was on hand, so only one sheet. Those brands I simply haven't found enough images to draw any conclusions about whether they came from one set of plates or two.

But for the middle size brands It would have been a matter of balancing the setup time vs the running time. So If I have an order for lets say 100,000 Piedmonts, 1000 BL, and 50,000 Sovereign I might free up a larger press by running the sovereigns on a smaller one So I'd do the Piedmonts as (Obviously not real numbers) 1000 sheets of 100. Then swap back plates and run 10 sheets of BL. Which would take a ton of labor compared to the run time. Then I might do the Sovs as 1000 sheets of 50. That spreads the setup time across more sheets reducing the labor cost/sheet.

I'm sure there's a formula for press size/quantity/labor cost But that was one of the few areas of printing they didn't involve me in. I do know that we had a small press that ran stuff in the 8 1/2x11 range a medium size one that did roughly 24" wide sheets and two 35 inch presses. And eventually a 35 inch two color press. The big ones were used for larger orders. Like a million or so bank deposit slips. The tiny one did stuff like a couple thousand business cards and a few hundred ads for a cheese business. The business cards were only 4 to a sheet.

Steve B

[tedzan]

I will start this by reminding you that in a previous thread on this topic, you agreed with me that for T206 type printing,
American Lithographic (ALC) employed a 19-inch wide press. Furthermore, your research informed us that the standard
size (19" x 24") cardboard sheets were used by ALC to print these 1 7/16" x 2 5/8" cards.

Here is my simulated sheet diagram of the 12 subjects in the 460-only series that I refer to as the "Exclusive 12". For a
thorough explanation of this special group of 12 - T206's, check out this thread.....
EXCLUSIVE 12


...v.......................... Standard size sheet 19" wide x 24" long ...........................v




Hey guys, your mythical 34-card T206 sheet (17 across x 2 rows) is mathematically (and physically) impossible to fit on
a standard sheet of cardboard whose dimensions are 19" x 24".....whichever way you try to print it


Finally, there are a total of 156 subjects in the 150 series (with PIEDMONT backs). And, there are 12 subjects in the
150-only series. Therefore, 156 - 12 = 144 subjects which were printed with both the 150 & 350 backs.

My math strongly suggests a factor of 12 is evident here (and throughout the White-bordered & Gold-bordered tobacco
card structure).

156 subjects, or 144 subjects, or 48 subjects, or 12 subjects, are not divisible by "17" ......not in this world.



T-Rex TED
.

[Runscott]

Ted, did you know that 144 is the twelfth number in the Fibonici series 144 and it is also twelve squared?

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey guys, your mythical 34-card T206 sheet (17 across x 2 rows) is mathematically (and physically) impossible to fit on
a standard sheet of cardboard whose dimensions are 19" x 24".....whichever way you try to print it

Glad you jumped in Ted. I honestly enjoy when you get in on this discussion and respect your opinions on the matter. The possibility of 17 cards jumped out at me again when I realized that the Sweet Cap 150 issues all were multiples of 17 (153, 153 and 34). I don't know anything about the presses used, ALC's equipment, etc. All I know are the cards in each issue... and after that I'm just using gut, math and logic.

I know that you (and others) contend that there is no other sheet dimension that could have been used, but the uncut Obak sheet was 31" x 23.5" and had 21 cards per row (image from the Huggins and Scott auction listing below). It's interesting with the Obak that half the set (88) composition is represented in this sheet, which would lead you to believe a single additional sheet layout comprised the remaining cards (87). It's also interesting to me that while the entire set could have fit on a single sheet (179 card sheet layout, and 175 cards in the set) that the cards were split onto two different sheets. I'll guess it is because it allowed them to use two presses running at the same time to produce the cards.

Anyway, I acknowledge that the sheets were produced by different companies on different sides of the country (I believe), but I'm letting sheer logic tell me that two tobacco card sets printed at roughly the same time could have utilized the same sheet size. Is there absolutely no way possible that T206s were printed on a sheet that exceeded 19" x 24"?

[Jantz]

Just an random observation of mine about the Obak sheet is the vertical line in the bottom left corner.

Lines like this have appeared on the front of T206s also.


Jantz

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Glad you jumped in Ted. I honestly enjoy when you get in on this discussion and respect your opinions on the matter. The possibility of 17 cards jumped out at me again when I realized that the Sweet Cap 150 issues all were multiples of 17 (153, 153 and 34). I don't know anything about the presses used, ALC's equipment, etc. All I know are the cards in each issue... and after that I'm just using gut, math and logic.

Be careful now....you chose two SWEET CAP examples that PERHAPS fit your number "17". There are other SWEET CAP examples that conform to my "12 factor". For example....the Exclusive 12 subjects with SWEET CAP 350-460 Factory #42. These 12 cards are the only SWEET CAP #42's in the 460-only series.




Note my emphasis of PERHAPS in your examples. I have theorized that the so-called "34 subjects" of the SWEET CAP 150 Factory #30 group were actually on a 36-card sheet. The
two missing guys were Plank and Wagner (who we know were discarded). Or, if you think this theory of mine is too speculative, then consider this.....the two additional slots were
filled by Double-Printing popular guys like Johnson and Matty.

Originally Posted by t206hound

I know that you (and others) contend that there is no other sheet dimension that could have been used, but the uncut Obak sheet was 31" x 23.5" and had 21 cards per row (image from the Huggins and Scott auction listing below). It's interesting with the Obak that half the set (88) composition is represented in this sheet, which would lead you to believe a single additional sheet layout comprised the remaining cards (87). It's also interesting to me that while the entire set could have fit on a single sheet (179 card sheet layout, and 175 cards in the set) that the cards were split onto two different sheets. I'll guess it is because it allowed them to use two presses running at the same time to produce the cards.

Regarding the OBAK sheet. Schmidt Lithographic (SL) of San Francisco was a large a printing firm as American Lithographic (ALC). SL produced some very high quality litho's
early in the 20th Century.
They apparently made use of their larger printing presses in the production of the OBAK series. Whereas, ALC realized, with their 6-7 color process, they achieved a higher
quality yield by printing smaller sheets of cards. And, yield was an important factor when you are cranking out 10 Million cards (or more). I have seen several uncut sheets
of various Non-Sports issues done by ALC....and, some are printed on smaller size (smaller than 19" x 24") sheets.

My point is, that you cannot compare what SL produced and try to translate that to what ALC produced. These two printing firms operated quite differently.



TED Z

[mrvster]

guys!

[steve B]

ALC did have presses with a 19" track. Specifically Hoe company number 5 presses. BUT and this is an important thing. ALC was a huge printing concern, the info about the presses comes from a diagram of one floor of the plant in an article about their conversion to electricity to run the machines.(Or use of electricity in the plant when it was new- I don't recall which it was. ) That was in Scientific American back then.

Most huge printing companies will have a variety of presses. The only places I've seen with only one size press have been either very small like someone running one of the little 10" presses in their garage. Or a place that only prints one fairly consistent item, like a newspaper or book publisher.


One of the things I find fascinating is that compelling arguments can be made for Both multiples of 12 and multiples of 17.

I will also say that I've seen the breakdown Chris did of the 460 series, and being at the time more in the 12 camp than the 17 I tried to use pop report numbers to break his groups. With the exception of maybe 4 cards that looked like they belonged in a different group my attempt at proving those groups wrong failed. And the very few that could have moved groups came in pairs - If one had too many graded copies for it's group it matched another group very well, AND that other group had a card that matched the other group. Neither of the swaps broke the overall pattern by requiring an unconfirmed combination.

Since then I've become convinced that both 12 and 17 are correct for particular portions of some series.

Some quick math based on a couple decent guesses and using Scot Readers estimates of how many might have been printed also leads me to believe that at least for the very common backs more than one press was used at a time. The numbers indicate a need for almost constant printing of Piedmont for sure. Say 100 million P350s? At 17x6 - 102 per sheet, that's 980392 sheets. Times 9 impressions/sheet is 8823529 impressions. At 800/hour = 11,029 hours. (And that doesn't count setup time and pre production, and cutting/packing) A 50 hour workweek is only 2600 hours a year. Three shifts with no downtime? 459 days Use of a two color press would cut the time in half. Using multiple presses would make it manageable.
Another option would be a far larger sheet, perhaps made up of 4 smaller sheets. Many US stamps were printed this way. Press sheet =4 10x10 panes that were then cut apart before perforating.

Steve B

[atx840]

Great discussion. Quick note for the 350-460 series backs. There are several subgroups we see of 28 cards that combine with the 6 super prints to make 34. There are other 13+21 subgroups that are always together that also make 34. The entire 460 series cards all break down to groups that combine to 34. Some likely were done over multiple print runs with a few cards being swapped out which gives the appearance that 34 is not a constant.....but it is

As well by taking the SC350-460 cards and grouping cards that are found together with other backs we end up with several smaller groupings. One group of 28 F42OPs shows up that do not show up with F30 backs. Even though under the OP is a F30. This sheet of 28 + 6 super prints was never released as F30 and went straight to the OP machine. Pretty cool.

Fortunately a scrap sheet survived before being Over Printed and we get the 34 know examples of the yellow brown scraps. Only the 34, all but one have been found with no exceptions. This makes me happy

[Runscott]

I bought two new brands of popcorn last night - one for each line of reasoning. Also picked up a case of Redhook pumpkin porter, which I highly recommend.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[steve B]

You'll need stronger stuff than pumpkin porter if you expect to understand Sheet layouts - Maybe a Belgian triple or ten

If it's just the entertainment, the pumpkin porter is an excellent choice.

Steve B

[t206hound]

Well, my beer is gone. I waited all weekend and no discussion.

[Runscott]

It is all good information but the discussion points, from what I can remember, have not changed.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk