T206 sheets: Huge factory numbers at back bottom

[atx840]

Makes sense Ted, ill need to look into that more but could be exactly why we see these only on SC. You are thinking the sheets were printed with f & bs and then sorted by the big red sheet # to get cut and sent to the appropriate factory. Cool.

I've seen a Gilbert with a 30 and we know he is part of the 649 OP backs Tim describes and could be the centre bottom card for those sheets. As well, on the article sheet example the Sheckard & Goode are side by side because of this sweet card that Brian posted.



I really need to start a side by side grouping based on miscuts and front ghosts...

Keep it up guys, this discussion is great and its possible we could get a good start on a few sheet layouts.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by atx840

Makes sense Ted, ill need to look into that more but could be exactly why we see these only on SC. You are thinking the sheets were printed with f & bs and then sorted by the big red sheet # to get cut and sent to the appropriate factory. Cool.

I've seen a Gilbert with a 30 and we know he is part of the 649 OP backs Tim describes and could be the centre bottom card for those sheets. As well, on the article sheet example the Sheckard & Goode are side by side because of this sweet card that Brian posted.


Keep it up guys, this discussion is great and its possible we could get a good start on a few sheet layouts.

Chris

As, I'm sure you know, I have posted a thread on my theory that the T206 (and T205) sheets were formatted with 12 cards across a row. Check-out this thread
posted in 2007......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=T206+sheets

My research into the type of printing press that American Lithographic employed to print these cards had a 19-inch track width. T206's are approx. 1 1/2 inches wide;
therefore, you can print 12 such cards across a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet. Thereby sheets of 36, 48, 60, 72 & 96 cards were printed.

Furthermore, this theory is reinforced by the fact that the make up of the various series of T206's, 1910 COUPON & RED CROSS subjects are for the most part divisible
by the factor 12. And, where they are not, Double-Prints were added. Such as the HINDU sheets of 34 subjects that were printed on 36-card sheets. Or, the 460-only
series of 46 subjects that were printed on 48-card sheets (in which DUFFY and FORD were Double-Printed).

Look, I don't care to get into another confrontation with others on this forum, who differ with this. My theory is based on valid research. I have additional examples of
American Lithographic printed sheets that support this.

TED Z

[Abravefan11]

I love the discussion and hope that as a collective we are able to reconstruct at least one plausible single sheet. I think that's a tall order and anything beyond that will be a bonus.

One word of caution regarding common backs such as Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. Cards with these back brands would have been printed on more than one occasion during the production of a particular print group. For example, several sheets of Piedmont 350 backs may have been printed early in the print group 2 production. Additional P350 sheets were printed in the middle or toward the end of that groups production. The sheet configurations of subjects could, and most likely, did change each time. This makes these backs ever tougher to figure out. Subsets like SC649 and Hindu where the sheet configurations didn't change may be the best bet.

I think the best possible scenario would be to find a printing anomaly that all subjects on one sheet shared. That's not asking for much is it?

Every little bit helps and I look forward to seeing where we are with this information in the years to come.

[steve B]

[QUOTE=Abravefan11;1063276]
I think the best possible scenario would be to find a printing anomaly that all subjects on one sheet shared. That's not asking for much is it?

QUOTE]

Not at all. The Piedmont 150 plate was heavily damaged in use and I believe much of that plate will be possible to reconstruct eventually.

The red Hindu backs show some similar marks, but they're uncommon enough that finding a second example to be sure it isn't just smeared ink or something transient like that is much harder. Finding the same marks on brown hindu backs would also work since that would show the plate being used for both colors.

I think other backs will show some consistent marks as well, but nothing really obvious like the scratches on P150.

Steve B

[Abravefan11]

Steve - My point is that the flagship brands like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal (with the exception of SC649) were printed multiple times during a print groups production.

If every back had a one time printing with a set number of sheets, all of the numbers would work out. But that's not what happened and why the numbers and anomalies won't be consistent. The subject configuration on a Piedmont 350 sheet early in print group 2's production could, and most likely was, different from the subject configuration later in print group 2's production when Piedmont 350 sheets were again printed.

Backs like the brown Hindu's, Sweet Caporal 649 and others appear to have been printed for a short period of time, with a set number of sheets. These sheet configurations would be consistent because a later printing of the cards didn't occur.

Yes, you may find a print defect that is indicative of one sheet for even the most common back. But it's going to be difficult to find one that effected at least one image of each subject on the entire sheet.

[steve B]

Yes, except the back plate would have been used to print the backs for more than one different sheet.

Figuring out the sheet size more certainly from the P150 scratches and other minor differences is probably possible.

Once a likely sheet size has been more nearly proven then a comparison of backs to fronts can eliminate certain fronts from being on the same sheet as certain others.
I've already found one pair of fronts that share a peculiar mark on the back.

Combining that information with the list of two name cards and other miscuts will get us even closer.


Yes, there's the likely complexity of multiple plates having the same players. But other than differences across print groups such as a minor difference between the 150 and 350 versions of the same card that's unlikely. The plates we're talking about were probably stones about 2-3 inches thick and the process of preparing them was a bit involved. They would have been set aside if the printer had any belief that they'd be reused. After that of course they were resurfaced and reused to print something else.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Ted, BTW - I'm not ignoring your sheet-size theory (12 card rows);rather, trying to see what others can glean from recent discoveries, if they were to apply it to Tim's sheet-size theory. I think it's worth exploring both.

[Jantz]

As far as sheet size or composition, I haven't reached a conclusion and can only speculate for now. Hopefully new evidence or examples will be discovered and shed more light on the subject.

There are a few T206s that have me stumped and are leaving me with more questions than answers.

Spade is one of those T206s. His cards have been seen with a sheet number, but Spade is also a card that has been found to have a different player's name on the top of his card.

So lets try this. Tim's theory is that there are 17 player's cards across a bottom of a sheet. Given what we know about these sheet numbers, if we were to speculate that the sheet number appears on the middle or ninth card across, then the player in the column directly above Spade would be Cicotte.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Cicotte's name also appears on an Abbaticchio (brown) card. The same can be said for Rossman & Lundgren (Chi.) since we have seen Rossman & Lundgren cards with different player's names on the top of their cards.

Rossman-McBride
Rossman-Thomas
Lundgren-Ball
Lundgren-Doolin

So lets say in the future we find an Abbaticchio, Lundgren or a Rossman card with a sheet number on the back. How can we explain the multiple different names at the tops of their cards?

So is there a pattern or no pattern at all?

I apologize Scott if I'm taking your thread in a different direction, I just wanted to add some other factors that tie in with sheet numbers.

Jantz

[atx840]

Im also curious about these RH markings, could be a scratch or something on the plate. Anyone have other examples?

2nd card in is McGraw, 5th is Pfeffer and 8th is Crandall..Pfeffer has red ink on front as well.

same McGraw

[Abravefan11]

Chris - I think this group is where you start looking for other red Hindu's with similar back issues.

Crandall (Portrait - w/ Cap)
Devore
Duffy
Ford
Gandil
Geyer
Hummel
Sheckard (Glove)
Tannehill (Chicago)
Wheat

[steve B]

I just can't buy the 34 theory. I know it fits, but there are groups of cards that don't fit that number and those all revolve around 6 or 12 card layouts.

17 wide also equals 24.43 inches wide, and standard paper runs toward sizes that aren't a good fit for that size printed area. Most sizes end up with either a very wide margin- like 3 inches or a very narrow ones like 1/4 inch. Neither being good practice.

I think the actual layouts included more copies of fewer cards, and were also likely more complex than the one shown.

layouts with certain cards appearing on two sheets would work, as would groups that included the superprints in additional rows.

There are even far more radical sheet layouts possible, but there's very little that would lead toward considering them.

Steve B