I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet

[Pat R]

I recently found this Gibson plate scratch that closes up a gap in the A-B sheet
which I think completes the horizontal layout for this sheet.
Attachment 220321 img352.jpg img353.jpg

Attachment 220322Sheet%20A-B - Copy.jpg

There were two different fronts used with this plate scratch sheet which has a Sweet Caporal Factory 649op and A SC 649 no print subject for each horizontal position so I think one sheet had all the 649's and other one
had the 649 no prints. There are 5 spots on the bottom row missing the second subject for that particular scratch, 3 649's and two 649 no prints.
Attachment 220340
img358 - Copy.jpg

There are two different plate scratch sheets with a left to right horizontal
scratch and they have two different distinct scratches. One is a heavier single
scratch and the other is thinner scratch that is double in some areas. (That's the scratch on this sheet.)

[Pat R]

I think this sheet is complete horizontally at 17 subjects or this is the minimum
width of this sheet. There are no vertical scratches on this sheet to determine
the height but one of the sheets with a vertical scratch is at least 11 high and
another is 12 high. I'm thinking 12 might be the vertical number. The hoe NO.4 press bed is 26X34 which would fit this sheet.

While I think the plate scratch sheets might have been 12X17 with the same subject used vertically for the entire sheet. I don't think all the sheets were
this size and we know for sure that the vertical subjects were not the same on all the sheets by the two name and miscut examples that exist.

This is what I think one of the A-B sheets looked like. O'Leary and McIntyre
need to be substituted with 649 no print subjects but the second scratch for those positions haven't been confirmed yet and they should be 649 no prints
when they're found.

[steve_a]

Congrats Pat. Exciting result from a lot of work.

[Mountaineer1999]

Pretty amazing Pat.. awesome effort sorting through these!

[T206Collector]

This is really great. You can see why they would be cut up even if they survived the printer's blade - all of the vertical repetition isn't as appealing as, say, a sheet with all different players on it, which would be far more displayable. Great job!

[t206hound]

I know you've put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this. Flat out awesome!

[wolf441]

That is really amazing work Pat. I can't imagine how much time you put into this, but the 12x17 sheet layout seems to make sense. I think this might be the closest we'll all come to seeing what an actual T206 sheet looked like.

If we gave out awards for expanding the knowledge of the Monster, you'd definitely collect some hardware!!

Best,

Steve

[boneheadandrube]

Great work and effort!

[Pat R]

Here's an example of another Gibson scratch that adds support to his
positioning on this sheet. The positions of the three different scratches
across the template are not where the rows would be vertically I just drew
them there using existing scratches to have an idea where new scratches
might be found on each back.

Jon (jcfowler6) posted these Gibson pics in post #97 of the plate scratch
thread. I kept a scan for my records but hadn't assigned it to a sheet and
I had forgot about it until I just put this new Gibson in my files.

The upper scratch is pretty faint compared to the lower scratch so there
are a large number of them that are unconfirmed. Jon's Gibson lines
up in the same horizontal row as the new lower Gibson scratch and
is pretty close to where it was drawn by simply connecting a couple
of the confirmed upper scratches to create a line across the whole sheet.

[steve B]

What a wonderful result Pat! When I first mentioned the scratches I'd hoped for a result like that in maybe a couple decades That you were able to put it together so "quickly" with a ton of work and a good deal of input from the rest of the list is amazing.


I'm thinking the sheet may have been wider, unless I'm not understanding the layout showing the scratches

The Hahn/Wilhelm and Murphy/Davis that are in the middle- extending that line left brings it right to the level shown for the right column, ?/O'Leary. So maybe there was a bit more to the right side. 2 unknowns then Hahn/Wilhelm then Murphy/Davis then..........Maybe more?

Way back I looked at pop reports for the 150 onlys, and found a definite grouping for those subjects, two clear groups of 6 and the couple outliers like the Magie and the Wagner. A sheet with a partial repeat would explain that.

Steve B

[Jantz]

Hi Pat

Excellent work as always!

Some aspects of your sheet layout I definitely agree with, others I'm just not sure about at this time.

Plate scratches are pretty solid evidence and I need more time to research the subject.

One thing that leads me to more questions than answers is the card below which has a Piedmont 150 back.

Jantz

[MVSNYC]

Incredible. Great work, bravo.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Hi Pat

Excellent work as always!

Some aspects of your sheet layout I definitely agree with, others I'm just not sure about at this time.

Plate scratches are pretty solid evidence and I need more time to research the subject.

One thing that leads me to more questions than answers is the card below which has a Piedmont 150 back.

Jantz

Hey Jantz,
I've looked at the information Pat has provided and have concluded (and I think Pat has too), that there was more than one press run for the Piedmont 150 subjects and that the layouts likely changed. To date, no two-name card in Piedmont 150 has exhibited a plate scratch.

Secondly, while I believe that in this sheet's case the vertical subjects were the same all the way down, Pat's depiction only shows four rows with the plate scratches. Other parts of the sheet vertically "could" have had a different order which would lead to the existence of the two-name Hinchman-Stovall.

Note that there is also two instances of Powell-O'Leary (both currently attributed to this sheet); Berten (Batting) also appears with Dooin as does Konetchy with Jennings.

[mrvster]

you will all be on my grading co. team someday

great work to all in involved!

[Pat R]

Thanks for the compliments everyone and thank you for the input Jantz.
I think it's important to answer and discuss the questions/opinions
like the one you have here.

Erick is correct I believe the sheet layouts and even the sheet sizes
varied throughout the whole series including the PD 150's. I will post
some of the evidence that led me to conclude this.

[Pat R]

I'm pretty confident with the layout of this sheet based on all the evidence I've
gathered. For the Hinchman/Stovall Jantz posted to work on this sheet it
would have to be a strange sheet layout.

Here is the lower scratch of Goode-Hincman-Bergen scanned together.
I had to substitute Goode for Powell because I don't have this Powell
card but it's the same exact scratch as Goode. You can see how well
they line up even where the scratch is split with two lines.

I will post scans of the Gibson-Stovall-O'Leary together but I'll
have to piece them together because Gibson and O'Leary are
in slabs.

I scan them at 1200 dpi but this is as large as I can post them here.

It's almost impossible for them to line up absolutely perfect because
of the different cuts (notice how far to left the Bergen is cut compared
to the right side of Hinchman and the right side of Goode compared to the
left of Hinchman)

[sreader3]

Pat -- Great work.

I buy the same-subject-on-multiple-sheets theory for the additional reason that some of the subjects appearing on Pat's reconstructed scratched sheet are significantly scarcer than others.

[And I would put Stovall (Portrait) and Hinchman (Cleveland) in the "easier" category].

Scot

[Jobu]

Would an estimate of sheet margin size be helpful in this discussion? I have been thinking about a way to figure that out for a few months and can try and come up with some guesses if they might help. i am thinking that an estimate of margin size combined with Pat's number of rows and columns might let us look at common sizes for different press and paper sizes.

Edited to add: And of course, awesome work Pat!

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Jobu

Would an estimate of sheet margin size be helpful in this discussion? I have been thinking about a way to figure that out for a few months and can try and come up with some guesses if they might help. i am thinking that an estimate of margin size combined with Pat's number of rows and columns might let us look at common sizes for different press and paper sizes.

Edited to add: And of course, awesome work Pat!

Bryan, any information is helpful.

There's some great information on some of the press sizes in this
thread.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125899

[tedzan]

I commend you on a lot of good work here.

However, as you know that I cannot accept your "17-subject" wide sheet arrangement. Basically for the following two reasons......

1st....the factor "17" does not map into any of the various T206 series (or sub-sets) numerical structure. As I have presented on
this forum many times, 12 is the common denominator throughout the T206 structure. For example: 12 subjects in the 150-only
group....144 subjects in the 150/350 series....48 subjects in the Southern League group....the Elite 12....the Exclusive 12....etc.

2nd....research has shown that American Lithographic printed these cards with a 19-inch wide track printing press.

Your speculation of a 17 cards wide sheet would require a 26-inch wide press.


Incidently, shown here are the Mullin cards in my sets. I don't see this PIEDMONT 150 Mullin (with scratch) in your diagram (Post #2).
The point that I'm making here is that trying to formulate an arrangement of a hypothetical T206 sheet based on printng scratches
can be quite arbitrary.







Hey guys, here is an example of my concept of a T206 sheet based on the Exclusive 12 subjects in the 460-only series......

..v............................19-inch x 24-inch sheet (standard size)............................v




TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Pat -- Great work.

I buy the same-subject-on-multiple-sheets theory for the additional reason that some of the subjects appearing on Pat's reconstructed scratched sheet are significantly scarcer than others.

[And I would put Stovall (Portrait) and Hinchman (Cleveland) in the "easier" category].

Scot

Thank You Scot. While working on this I've developed a great appreciation for you and all of the others that have done extensive research on this set, it
can be a lot of information to keep track of.

The answers to some of the mystery's might be hidden in these sheets. For instance... Powers is the lone 150 only subject on this sheet
and we know he's also the only SC factory 649op subject from that group.
The rest of the 150 only subjects are together on a different plate scratch
sheet with the exception of Wagner, Magie and George Brown (Chic) no
scratches have been found on these three subjects yet.

The following are together on the same plate scratch sheet.

Ames (hands at chest)
Brown, M (cubs)
Burch (batting)
Donlin (fielding)
Doyle (throwing)
Evers (cubs)
Pattee
Pelty (horizontal)
Reulbach (glove showing)

Schulte (front view) is also on this sheet and personally I still consider
this card a 150 only.

[steve B]

The Mullin has a scratch from upper left to lower right. That's part of a different group from the ones Pat has put together so far. That other one I think also has a vertical scratch or two.

While the Scientific American article showed Hoe #5 presses at ALC when they electrified, there's no evidence I've seen indicating any particular press used for any particular job. That includes the existing progressive proof books for cigar box labels.
Like any large shop ALC most likely had a variety of presses that would be used depending on how many of something were to be printed.

The scratches can show certain things, but not others. They can show that two cards were likely side by side on the sheet. That there's two cards showing the same scratch limits that to a possibility of 2, but at the same time, if one shows the scratch and another shows the same scratch they can be positively ruled out as being from the same sheet. Combined with a front mark like the one Pat showed recently they can show cards as being from the same sheet. It's hardly arbitrary.

There are a few things that need more research.
ALC was close to Hoe in a business sense, Hoe made a lot of different sorts of presses around 1910. Including both the flatbed presses like the #5, rotary presses that used plates rather than stones, web fed presses that printed not sheets but rolls of paper or cardstock, and multi color presses. There is some evidence that some but probably not all T206s were printed on a two color press.

There's a lot of evidence that most of the series were printed at least three times, and that subjects were reworked between printings as well as between series. 150's were done at least three times, and were altered before the 350 series, which was printed at least twice with a reworking in between for many subjects.

And among all that is the possibility (Almost certainty) that there were multiple sheet layouts for each series AND each back. That's especially true for the 150's where there's a handful of outliers that don't match up with a simple layout of single sheets. (Crawford wasn't in the Sovereign set but was in all the others. I can't imagine he was printed but pulled)

The scratches - at least one of them was deep enough to carry over into P350. Whether it was deep enough to survive resurfacing or the 150 stone with the scratch was altered to produce a 350 stone without having all new transfers laid down is a puzzle for the future.

At least one P150 back shows a doubling, either a poorly erased earlier layout or a redone misplaced transfer (Criger - Any others?)

So the simple solution of a sheet always being the same size really doesn't work.

Steve B

[Pat R]

Ted,

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I'm not saying all of the sheets were
this size but several of the plate scratch sheets are larger than 12 subjects
wide, this I'm sure of and I think the plate scratch evidence is solid proof of
that.

As Steve said the Mullin is a right to left plate scratch and was on a different
sheet. The sheet In this thread consists of subjects with left to right plate scratches.
At last count there were over 250 different plate scratches and 5 or 6
different plate scratch sheets. (I'm on the fence if one of the sheets is actually
two separate sheets).

Here's the sheet with Mullin on it.

[Leon]

Those match up nicely, job well done, Pat. It's always fun to learn of the processes behind the making of the cards.

And thanks for sharing all of the info guys...and for the good card discussion.

[Pat R]

Well I found out how good the template works.
When I originally made this template I only had Four scratches
for the middle line and they're pairs so they only cover two spots
on the sheet plus they're side by side so I couldn't continue the line
across the sheet with no other scratches to connect them to.

I acquired this Williams scratch after I made the template and
this afternoon when I got home from work I went to add it to the template
and I couldn't get it to line up, after some head scratching and talking to myself
I realized that I had put the middle line one spot to far to the right.
The scratches I have are Criger/Harry Davis and Hahn/Wilhelm but I had put
the Criger/Davis scratch in the Hahn/Wilhelm slot and The Hahn/Wilhelm in
the Murphy/George Davis slot thus the reason I couldn't get the Williams to line up.

I didn't want to go through the process of making a whole new template
so I just cut out the two that were wrong and taped new ones in their place
and made a new longer line with the Williams addition.
I still have to put all the X's back for the confirmed scratches.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Very cool stuff!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Pat R]

This is the corrected template with the middle line where it should be and
all the X's marking the confirmed scratches. The Red ? marks are the three
missing SC 649 scratches. These three scratches should eventually be found
on subjects from this list.

Alperman
Bates
Bransfield
Bresnahan (port)
Delehanty
Ewing
Gilbert
Jones
Killian
Lajoie (throwing)
Marquard (hands at side)
Mathewson (white cap)
McQuillan (ball in hand)
Owen
Ritchey
Schlei (catching)
Schmidt (throwing)
Sheckard (no glove showing)
Spencer
Wagner (bat on left shoulder)

If anyone has any SC 649 subjects from this list with a PD 150 back and would check
them for any of the missing scratches it would be much appreciated.

[cfc1909]

Patrick

fantastic research. Very solid and fits with the the set numbers. Well done my friend.

[Pat R]

Made some more progress on this sheet, I found another piece of the upper
scratch. This Williams lines up with Conroy on the upper scratch. All three
different Williams scratches are now confirmed for this sheet and only
the middle Conroy scratch remains unconfirmed for this pair of neighbors.

[parkerj33]

Maybe i am misunderstand most excellent research, but .... it troubles me that there is only a partial scratch that is perfectly parallel to row 1 (in row 2). couldn't there be a plausible layout such that the seven cards in row 2( position 2-8) from weimer/pastorius to ?/mcintyre could actually be extended in row 1 (positions 18-24)? it looks like that scratch would line up....

Edited: actually after photoshopping it, it looks like you need a gap between your column 17 and the next row two scratches....so it would be row 2, col 1-8 added onto your 17 column row 1.

i state all this because it seems odd (but not impossible) that we would have a partial scratch in the middle of the sheet that is PERFECTLY parallel to the top scratch.

Edited2: One MORE thing to consider: if the sheet were 30 players across, the top scratch would perfectly extend from the lower left corner of a new row 1, col1 all the way through upper right corner of column 30. I don't know that we can say the scratch HAS to extend the whole width but it would be perfectly at the corners of row 1 if row 1 were 30 columns wide. I will try to photoshop it, but i am not adept. In other words, your 17 columns are actually columns 3 - 19, your row 2 (col 1-8) are actually columns 20-27, two unknown columns to left, and three to the right give you a scratch that goes perfectly across from top to bottom of 30 columns.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by parkerj33

Maybe i am misunderstand most excellent research, but .... it troubles me that there is only a partial scratch that is perfectly parallel to row 1 (in row 2). couldn't there be a plausible layout such that the seven cards in row 2( position 2-8) from weimer/pastorius to ?/mcintyre could actually be extended in row 1 (positions 18-24)? it looks like that scratch would line up....

Edited: actually after photoshopping it, it looks like you need a gap between your column 17 and the next row two scratches....so it would be row 2, col 1-8 added onto your 17 column row 1.

i state all this because it seems odd (but not impossible) that we would have a partial scratch in the middle of the sheet that is PERFECTLY parallel to the top scratch.

Hi Jim,

The sheet is just a template I drew using some of the existing scratches. The
reason the middle line is only a partial line is because I don't have any scratches on the right hand side to extend that line yet. For example: in the
top line the potential scratches in that line are missing between Williams/Lake to Shaw/powers, The existing scratches are marked with X's
the ones without an X should be found on Subject(s) named in the same vertical
row at the bottom of the sheet. Using this recent Williams as an example
it was in the top row with no X because it was previously unconfirmed and
it now fits that slot and has a scratch that matches the template.

I don't think any off middle scratches are an extension of the upper
scratch but I can't rule out the possibility yet. The middle scratch is on
a slightly steeper plane than the upper scratch and if it was an extension of
the upper scratch you would have the same subject in two different places
horizontally on a sheet.

[rebelsart]

Hello Patrick,
Just wanted to say this is fantastic! Great detective work. Just amazing.
Art M.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by rebelsart

Hello Patrick,
Just wanted to say this is fantastic! Great detective work. Just amazing.
Art M.

Thanks Art.

While all the other sheets have a vertical scratch to establish where
the horizontal scratches are located unfortunately the A-B sheet
doesn't but there is a very light partial vertical scratch on a couple
of Conroy's and a Murphy. Since it doesn't go through any of the
horizontal scratches these cards must have been above or
below all of the horizontal scratches.

Note: The vertical scratches on Conroy & murphy on the sheet with
the red line is only for the Murphy/Conroy connection, they aren't actually
through any horizontal scratches.

[Pat R]

The point that I'm making here is that trying to formulate an arrangement of a hypothetical T206 sheet based on printng scratches
can be quite arbitrary.






TED Z
.[/QUOTE]

Ted,

I hardly think it's arbitrary when there are many instances of the same subjects having more than one scratch that puts them together on a sheet
in some cases as many as three or four. There is also a Seymour/Cicotte
combo that has a mark on the front that connects them in addition to the
the two different plate scratches on the backs.

[Pat R]

I found a few more pieces to this puzzle. A Lake and Williams that are
both from the same position from one of the lighter scratches.

I also found a Stahl that turned out to be a match with McIntyre. This was one of the five remaining unconfirmed 2nd subjects. There are four remaining
unconfirmed subjects, there should be a SC 649 subject that matches Conroy (horizontal row 6) Hinchman (row 10) and Gibson (row 15) and there should
be a non 649 subject that matches O'Leary (row 17).

[Jantz]

Nice job Pat! Looks like the puzzle is coming together.

While we're on the subject. I posted before about seeing scratches on a few Polar Bear backs. Recently I've found a few more players that have the scratch in the same location as well.

I'm going to set that project off to the side for you to work on when you get this Piedmont sheet finished.

Hope all is well and thanks for posting this new information.

Jantz

[Pat R]

I came across this Powell with a fine line running through the bottom.
Powell [3].jpg

It doesn't look like most of the other plate scratches and may have been caused by something different but there is another Powell and Hinchman
that have similar marks.
Powell1_1.jpgHinchman%202_1.jpg

I would guess that this mark was only on a few sheets. Powell and
Hinchman have another plate scratch that puts them along side each
other on this sheet and the line on this new Powell lines up with these two.
Powell%20Back - Copy (2).jpg

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Nice job Pat! Looks like the puzzle is coming together.

While we're on the subject. I posted before about seeing scratches on a few Polar Bear backs. Recently I've found a few more players that have the scratch in the same location as well.

I'm going to set that project off to the side for you to work on when you get this Piedmont sheet finished.

Hope all is well and thanks for posting this new information.

Jantz

Hey Jantz,

Per our discussion at the national I'm not sure how much could be pieced together with the PB scratches but at the very least it's possible to put
together some subjects that weren't on the same sheets together but were
in the same position on different sheets with the scratches and print flaws.

Here's a Bell and Merkle with the same flaw and I think there should be
another subject with the same flaw as the PB flaws seem to occur on three
different subjects but I haven't found a third one with this flaw yet.

Patrick

[1880nonsports]

but I have a couple proof sheets for non-sport "T" cards issued contemporaneously to the T206's. The sheets are for sets of fifty cards - there are 3 sheets each with 12 cards and one sheet with 14 cards - an extra two cards with no double-prints and the extra space taken by a color-bar. While the lithographer would think it prudent to utilize all available space - just possible that not all sheets were uniform. Just saying.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

but I have a couple proof sheets for non-sport "T" cards issued contemporaneously to the T206's. The sheets are for sets of fifty cards - there are 3 sheets each with 12 cards and one sheet with 14 cards - an extra two cards with no double-prints and the extra space taken by a color-bar. While the lithographer would think it prudent to utilize all available space - just possible that not all sheets were uniform. Just saying.

Seeing those would be wonderful. If it's any of the ALC cards as most were then, it's the perfect example of how things can become complex.

I know ALCs progressive proof books are out there for many of the cigar box labels, since I saw one I've wondered if the progressive proofs for any of the baseball or non-sport cards survived.

Steve B

[PolarBear]

Excellent research! This is exactly how stamp collectors have reconstructed early 1850's plates.

[Leon]

I agree wholeheartedly. As an "esoteric" collector I really enjoy putting puzzles together too. Once again, great work by all ...

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Excellent research! This is exactly how stamp collectors have reconstructed early 1850's plates.

[steve B]

Pat has done some amazing work. To out it in some context, for the stamps the sheet size was known, and blocks were and are available. More so in the 30's when the plating work began, plus back then the stamps were relatively inexpensive.

Obviously for T206, the sheet size isn't truly known, and there's no blocks. So to assemble so much of a sheet based on flaws that cross from one card to the next is a rather impressive achievement.

Steve B

[Jantz]

Hi Pat

Took a look at some of the backs on my cards tonight. My J.J. Clarke has a plate scratch going through the "150" on the top of the card back. I can get you a scan if you want.

Jantz

[Pat R]

I just located a scan of one of the four missing spots on this sheet and it's
one that we have been speculating about but didn't assign because we
didn't have solid proof.

Chris B and I have been emailing back and forth about the SC 150/649
matching pairs. Based on the matching pairs we were trying to break the SC150/649's down into two groups (Sheets).

I was using this plate scratch sheet which has one 649 in each slot to help breakdown the two groups and it got me thinking about this Sheckerd/Goode Sc 150/30 miscut that Brian W had posted scans of (thanks Brian).
Sheckard-Goode.jpg

One of the missing spots on this plate scratch sheet is next to Goode.
Hinchman-Sheckard - Copy.jpg

I had searched for a Sheckard that matched Hinchman many times with no luck
but I hadn't checked for any in awhile until this morning and I found this one
that matched Hinchman which is right next to Goode.
Hinchman [1b] Back.jpg
Sheckard Scratch.jpgSheckard Scratch Front.jpg
Sheckard Scratch - Copy.jpg

[Luke]

Great work Pat!

[Pat R]

I'm really happy with the progression of this sheet the last two days.

The most recent discovery is a little involved and I'm terrible at trying
to explain these things via a computer but I'll give it a try.

I was pretty sure before but now I'm positive this sheet mirrors a SC150/649
sheet and I think this is one of two 649 sheets that were printed.

The recent Sheckard discovery left only two spots on this sheet that remained
with an unconfirmed 649 subject.

The names and empty slots (?) in red are the 649's.
Sheet [A-B] X Large updated - Copy.jpg

While working on the 649 same sheet position matching pairs combo I
came up with these two.
Bransfield%20-%20Ewing.jpg

Neither Bransfield or Ewing were on this sheet so if this PD150 sheet
mirrored a 649 sheet and there were only two sheets which I believe
is the case Branfield or Ewing would have to match one of the two
unfilled spots.

I haven't found a Bransfield that matches what I consider the main (lower)
scratch subject. But I do have a Bransfield that has a vertical scratch.
Bransfield Back.jpg

I thought this Branfield could be a continuation of these two Conroy vertical scratches.
Conroy [2] Back.jpgConroy [3] Back.jpg

While looking through Branfield scans I found this one that matches one of
the vertical Conroys.
Conroy - Branfield.jpg

I also found this Bransfield that I'm confident is a lighter version of a Conroy
secondary horizontal scratch.
Bransfield.jpg
Bransfield Front.jpg
Conroy Back [4] - Copy.jpg

Now only the Gibson slot remains to complete the empty 649 slot
and that would give us the layout of one 649 sheet and no layout
but all of the subjects that were on the 2nd sheet.

[steve B]

I'm amazed this came together so quickly. I'd figured on it taking a lot longer.

One thing I'm finding interesting.

I think the other group of the upper scratch fits to the right of the main field. And by the numbers, 17+7=24 so a 24 wide sheet with a few doubleprints satisfies the divisible by 17 group, and 24 or 12 satisfies the divisible by 12 group. I think it's entirely possible that both are right.

The clincher would be the numbers on something like the Hindu Sls, or the 649s. There should be 7 of each that are more common. (Or if you like, 10 that are tougher)

Steve B

[Pat R]

I located the last remaining SC150/649 OP subject scratch for this sheet
and I'm pretty confident this completes the horizontal layout of a PD150
sheet that was also used for a SC150/649 printing. The only spot that remains to be
filled is the scratch that matches the O'Leary which should be a
non 649 subject if it follows the pattern of the other 16 horizontal positions.

The new scratch is this Bresnahan that matches Gibson.
Sheet [A-B] X Gibson-Bresnahan updated.jpgBresnahan.jpg
Bresnashan-Gibson%20Scratch%20Match.jpg
Bresnahan Back.jpgGibson 1.jpg
Bresnahan Crop.jpgGibson 1 crop.jpg

I also found this Conroy which was one of the secondary scratches missing from this sheet.
Sheet [A-B] X Large updated Conroy 5.jpg
Conroy 5.jpg
Conroy 5 Crop.jpg

I think layout of the other 649 sheet can be established by comparing back
flaws and assigning their sheet position based on the subject they match from this sheet.

[Pat R]

[QUOTE=Pat R;1601932]I'm really happy with the progression of this sheet the last two days.

The most recent discovery is a little involved and I'm terrible at trying
to explain these things via a computer but I'll give it a try.

I was pretty sure before but now I'm positive this sheet mirrors a SC150/649
sheet and I think this is one of two 649 sheets that were printed.

The recent Sheckard discovery left only two spots on this sheet that remained
with an unconfirmed 649 subject.

The names and empty slots (?) in red are the 649's.
Attachment 251101

While working on the 649 same sheet position matching pairs combo I
came up with these two.
Attachment 251102

Neither Bransfield or Ewing were on this sheet so if this PD150 sheet
mirrored a 649 sheet and there were only two sheets which I believe
is the case, Branfield or Ewing would have to match one of the two
unfilled spots.

I haven't found a Bransfield that matches what I consider the main (lower)
scratch subject. But I do have a Bransfield that has a vertical scratch.
Attachment 251104

I thought this Branfield could be a continuation of these two Conroy vertical scratches.
Attachment 251105Attachment 251106

While looking through Branfield scans I found this one that matches one of
the vertical Conroys.
Attachment 251107

I also found this Bransfield that I'm confident is a lighter version of a Conroy
secondary horizontal scratch.
Attachment 251111
Attachment 251112
Attachment 251113


I found a Bransfield that matches the Conroy from the main scratch on this sheet.
Bransfield-Conroy Back.jpg
Bransfield-Conroy.jpg