1 Attachment(s)
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 |
Incredible. Great work, bravo.
|
Quote:
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. |
guys....
you will all be on my grading co. team someday;)
great work to all in involved!:D |
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. |
4 Attachment(s)
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) |
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 |
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! |
Quote:
There's some great information on some of the press sizes in this thread. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=125899 |
Pat R
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. http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...150SOVx50x.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...50SOVx50bx.jpg 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 http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...96cards50x.jpg TED Z . |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 PM. |